Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Pension Reform

Lynne Featherstone: Whether he plans to bring forward legislation on pension reform in this Parliament.

David Blunkett: As the hon. Lady will know, the Turner commission will report on 30 November. Ministers will then have the chance to respond and to continue the dialogue that is taking place across the country to gain a consensus—between political parties, I hope, as well as across the nation—on the way forward. The Prime Minister indicated at the beginning of October that we would make decisions during the   next 12 months about the progression of the Government from that point, and at that stage we will of course make a statement to the House.

Lynne Featherstone: Given that the Minister's judgment has been so publicly brought into question in recent times, does he believe that he remains in a position to secure the consensus that he mentioned in a   divided Cabinet over the urgent need radically to reform the pensions system?

David Blunkett: All new Members can be forgiven for misunderstanding what Question Time is about. The reception that my Ministers and I—I am sure that this is also true of the main Opposition party—have received when we have gone round the country discussing pensions is very simple. People want us to take the matter seriously and to have stable and secure solutions for the future. Above all, they do not want a party political knockabout. If the hon. Lady learns that lesson, she will have learned something worth while for the future.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend will know that some of us are very grateful to the Government for the financial assistance scheme, which is the responsibility of his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry. I am grateful for the   help that has been given in my constituency to people with the Lister Petter pension scheme. However, we now need to look forward in order to assist those who are not in line for the immediate first tranche of help. About 20 people have been helped already, but hundreds more need to know that the Government are committed to bringing forward proper procedures to help them, as it is through no fault of their own that their company pension schemes have been liquidated. Can my right hon. Friend give an opinion on that?

David Blunkett: I appreciate the nature of the question. It is a terrible thing for those who have been so badly affected by the collapse of these schemes. We now have the operation up and running. The unit has received the   necessary material from 17 of the schemes, and we   sincerely hope that we will be able to make the first   payments before Christmas. However, there is also a long-term issue. My Ministers and I have been receiving representations from Members and from those representing previous work forces across the country. We are deeply sympathetic to trying to find a way forward in future.

George Young: On pensions reform, is it the Government's view that the regime for local government employees should be broadly the same as that for civil servants?

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been chairing the tripartite forum to endeavour to find a solution that meets the statutory requirements to balance the books and deals with the separate issue of how this equates to public service pensions more generally, which is being dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is important that people have choices about their retirement. It is also important that they are aware of the consequences of the particular age at which they retire and the longevity that they can expect. All of us, whether in the public or private sector, have to take that on board personally.

Joan Humble: Whatever comes out of the Turner report and the programme for pensions reform, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a detailed programme of education and information so that members of the public can make the informed choices that he mentioned, and especially so that young people can plan for their future and decide which of the many different savings vehicles and pension plans is the right one for them?

David Blunkett: I am absolutely certain that the Pensions Commission will have a lot to say about the   nature of such information and the education programme that goes with it. One thing that is clearly shining through—I think that Members will have felt it themselves—is that if we can make the system as simple and understandable as possible, so that people are not faced with impossible choices, we might be able to connect young people with what appears to be a very distant future, and the fact that they may spend nearly as long in retirement as in work.

Malcolm Rifkind: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was speaking yesterday of the benefit of hindsight. With the benefit of hindsight, does he agree that the Prime Minister made a very foolish mistake in asking the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and not the   Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to negotiate the question of pension reform with the public sector unions? Does he agree that that is an example of the crumbling confidence that the Prime Minister appears to have in his efforts? Will he endorse the outcome of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's discussions, which have ensured that for millions of people in the public sector it will be 40 years before their 60-year retirement age ends, while people in the private sector are being told that they may have to work for years longer than 65? Will those discussions help him to achieve consensus on pension reform?

David Blunkett: That is a very good try. The confidence that the shadow Secretary of State appeared to have in   me crumbled within 10 seconds. The decision was taken on who should continue to handle public sector pensions, namely the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on 6 May, and I do not think that I had taken office when that decision was taken, so nothing has crumbled. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that 85 per cent. of the due costs will be met by turnover in the public service pension programme, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Negotiations are continuing within the framework that has been laid down and within the particular sectors affected.

Denis MacShane: My right hon. Friend is a very youthful, energetic, virile kind of chap with many years of service on the Front Bench. Will he welcome the German Government's decision to move the retirement age in Germany from 65 to 67? Bismarck chose a retirement age of 65 at a time when the   average life expectancy of a German worker was 49,   which resulted in a wonderful pension scheme—everybody paid in, and, if they lived, they waited until they were 65 to draw out. We live in a different world, and I urge my right hon. Friend to get away from 60,   65 and any other arbitrary age limit and to bury the idea that there is a time when people must retire or when he must leave the Front Bench.

David Blunkett: I plead guilty to being energetic—my virility has been over-exaggerated. Bismarck had the foresight—which is a great asset for a politician as well as hindsight—to see how the world was moving. If we have the foresight to see what the 21st century holds, we   will get it right not only on the public sector, but for the nation as a whole.

David Laws: On pensions reform, will the Secretary of State assure us that nothing will distract him from pursuing that vital agenda? On the public sector pensions deal, at a time when Lord Turner is considering later retirement, is it really sensible to allow a deal to be struck where public sector workers who have not even joined the public sector yet will be allowed to retire at 60 in 2048? Is that really consistent with what Lord Turner is looking at?

David Blunkett: On the first, rather pathetic point, the answer is no. On the second point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced that from next year people joining the schemes will have a retirement age of 65. The hon. Gentleman should consider what has been said, rather than the mythology that he has peddled this afternoon.

Kelvin Hopkins: With the repeated failures and what now looks like the lingering death of private pension provision, will my right hon. Friend accept that to ensure secure pensions in future we must re-examine the state and start where Barbara Castle left off with the state earnings-related pension scheme?

David Blunkett: We should look to the state, to the individual and their responsibility and to employers. If we can get a tripartite approach that balances those different elements, we will have a pension scheme that is viable for the future and that provides people with the   necessary retirement income to see them through the extra nine-to-12 years that they now live compared with 40 years ago, when Barbara Castle dealt with the issue very well. If we had only been able to see then the   longevity that exists now, we might have been able to put a more secure and stable scheme in place.

Child Support Agency

Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement on the future of the Child Support Agency.

David Blunkett: In April, we appointed a new chief executive for the Child Support Agency. When I   took office on 6 May, I asked him to undertake a root and branch review of both operation and service delivery, and that report will be available within a matter of weeks. We intend to place the report before the   House, to place ourselves in front of the Select Committee and to negotiate with the House authorities on obtaining a proper debate on the report, which will open up the issues and ensure that we get it right for the future at last.

Andrew Selous: May I recommend that the Secretary of State takes a plane trip to Australia, where he will find   a child support agency that gets more money than   our CSA to parents caring for children? The Australian CSA helps to look after the emotional needs of non-resident parents, rather than just extracting money from them, and it is about to help families to stay together in the first place through a network of family relationship centres. Those lessons are valuable. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give us that he will learn from them?

David Blunkett: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question constituted the best offer that I have had for several days, and I shall certainly take him up on it. I   take the second part very seriously, however. We must take every possible step to avoid breakdown. We need, and have discussed, a gateway or ameliorative process to ensure that when relationships do break down, no bureaucratic machinery is involved in dealing with the consequences, but above all to remind people that the   CSA was established—by a Conservative Government—because individuals were not prepared to take responsibility for their actions. We are trying to   remedy a breakdown in civil society, not just a breakdown of the bureaucratic processes.

George Mudie: A constituent of mine should be paying £264 a month, but is paying £483 for one child under the old scheme. He is paying £220 a month too much, and is understandably angry and bitter about the unfairness of the scheme. He has been waiting for two years for the old scheme to be merged with the new one.
	The Secretary of State suggested earlier that papers would be produced, and that a debate would take place. Is he telling us that there will be no early move to transfer old cases to the new scheme? If so, that is very bad news for thousands of people.

David Blunkett: A quarter of a million cases have been moved to the new system, but the conflict within the families concerned—for every gainer there is a loser, such as my hon. Friend's constituent: a gain means a   loss for the recipient—means that there is an unwillingness to transfer voluntarily to the new scheme. In such circumstances, we must get the information technology right. One reason why the process has taken so long, and why I am determined to be absolutely transparent and honest about the difficulties when we produce the report, is that misleading people into believing that something can be done and then creating bureaucratic administrative chaos leaves those who are most in need at the receiving end of the failure. I am determined that, following all the effort invested by my predecessors, we will get it right this time.

Michael Weir: Last week, summing up a debate in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), gave the following welcome assurance:
	"We have undertaken that there will be no reduction in front-line staff working in the agency until we are absolutely sure that the system is robust and working."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 26 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 122WH.]
	Can the Secretary of State tell us how he would define "front-line staff"? Would they include the enforcement and criminal compliance team, and those who are involved daily in firefighting the various problems of the failing IT system in local offices?

David Blunkett: In fact, we have increased the number of staff substantially over the last three months. Yes, those involved in direct enforcement are front-line staff, which is why we have been transferring back-office activity to the front line, using the product of information technology. I believe that we now have 2,000 staff on the enforcement programme. Obviously, clear signals and messages must be sent if people are to be compelled to pay.

Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State assure us that when he presents the House with a programme to reform the CSA, he will pay special attention to the 100,000 people who have been assessed for maintenance and have refused to pay a penny—unlike the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie)? Is it not a fact that the addresses of many of those 100,000 people are unknown to the CSA? Other countries that have experienced the same problem have devised a "bounty hunter" system, under which officers are paid only if they find those who refuse to pay maintenance. If we had such a system in this country, would not many more children receive maintenance, and would not taxpayers face smaller bills?

David Blunkett: I am prepared to consider most options for following up recalcitrant parents and trying to find those who owe money—both to their partner and often to the state—but I do not believe that the bounty-hunter system would fit with our culture. If my right hon. Friend has any other ideas, I would be pleased to hear from him.

Paul Goodman: It has been claimed that, since his appointment, the Secretary of State has given advice to DNA Bioscience about CSA contracts. So far, those claims have not specifically been denied. To clear up the matter, will he either deny or confirm them?

David Blunkett: I am happy to say that I have done no such thing.

Private Memorials

Brooks Newmark: What steps he is taking to provide local authorities with guidance on (a) the circumstances and (b) the manner in   which it is appropriate to interfere with private memorials on the ground of safety; and if he will make a statement.

Anne McGuire: The Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1977 gives local authorities that act as burial authorities wide powers to carry out whatever they consider necessary or desirable for the proper management, regulation and control of cemeteries, and specifically to put and keep in order any tombstone or other memorial. In addition, a considerable amount of guidance on memorial management and safety standards has been published by the relevant professional and representative bodies.

Brooks Newmark: Does the Minister appreciate that a vicious circle of referrals and consultations has developed since the issue first came to light in 2000? For the past five years, people such as my constituent, Margaret Archer, have had to suffer interference with the graves of their loved ones and local councils have had to bear the brunt of criticism for a policy that they did not choose to initiate. Why have the Government taken so long to produce clear advice?

Anne McGuire: May I first put the situation in context? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of it. In the past six years, serious accidents, including three fatalities, have occurred in graveyards through memorials toppling over. In 2000, guidance was drawn up to highlight a range of options to make memorials safe. The Health and Safety Commission chairman was concerned that some local authorities were perhaps being over-zealous in their interpretation of the guidelines. I note that he wrote to local authorities. There have been significant difficulties in trying to form a consensus on what needs to be done, not least because of the spectrum of organisations, ranging from large local authorities to small churchyards, that manage burial grounds. We await advice from the advisory group and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the House will be advised in due course.

Unemployment

James Gray: If he will make a statement on the claimant count level of unemployment.

Margaret Hodge: Latest figures show that claimant unemployment stands at 875,500. Despite recent rises in the claimant count, it remains historically low. In the past year, employment has continued to increase with more people in work now than ever. Economic inactivity has fallen and, overall, the number of people on out-of-work benefits is down.

James Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for her answer but does she agree that it is important that she should not be thought to verge on complacency? She did not say that the figure in September is 8,200 up on a month earlier and 39,500 up on a year earlier. All the figures demonstrate that the trend is upwards. If we are to believe her that the figures are good news, will she stake her reputation as a Minister on their being back down again 12 months from now?

Margaret Hodge: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are far from complacent. Indeed, I am currently examining the reason for the small rise in the claimant unemployment count. It is interesting that more people are not coming on to that count. However, people are staying on it for longer and we need to track what is happening to cause that longer period out of work. It would not be right for me to give an assurance about the position a year from now. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall make every endeavour to ensure that we maintain the strong figures on employment, which is up by more than 100,000 in the last quarter, more than 300,000 in the past year and more than 2.3 million since we have been in government. We are proud of that record and we intend to sustain it.

Ashok Kumar: May I tell the Minister that more people are working in my constituency today than at any time when the Conservatives were in power? It is a great credit to this Government that unemployment has   dropped by 50 per cent. in my constituency. I am slightly concerned, however, about the slight increase in the claimant count. The Minister recently introduced the building on the new deal programme for Gateshead and Tyneside. Will she, in a sympathetic moment, extend it to the Tees valley and my constituency? Then we could really put an end to the great social concern of unemployment for all our constituents.

Margaret Hodge: We have an unparalleled record of   dealing with unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. We have got rid of the scourge of youth unemployment from the face of Britain. We have also had huge success with our new deal programmes, including the new deal for young people, the new deal for lone parents—which has resulted in an 11 per cent. increase in their employment rates—and now the pathway pilots for incapacity benefit reform. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will spread to all parts of the country the best practice from a range of initiatives taking place across the country, as we aspire to achieve even higher levels of employment in Britain.

John Bercow: Given that minimising the regulatory burden is vital to the creation of wealth and jobs, will the Minister tell the House what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the merits of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Businesses Regulatory   Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 in the United States?

Margaret Hodge: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's clever question is that I have not had any such discussions. I shall write to him when I have familiarised myself with those pieces of legislation, and, if they are relevant to my job, I shall ensure that I do undertake such discussions.

Geraldine Smith: May I tell the Minister that unemployment has gone down dramatically in my constituency since we have had a Labour Government, but that there are still problems in seaside resorts? Will she take that on board, and give me an assurance that unemployment will not reach   3 million again, as it did under the previous Tory Government?

Margaret Hodge: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that we would not damage the economy in the way in which the Conservatives did, which resulted in high levels of unemployment and in mortgage and home ownership collapse, along with many other examples of a poorly run economy. My hon. Friend made the serious point that we need to look right across the country at the areas that suffer particular challenges. I hope that, as we develop a more flexible response to unemployment and inactivity in the labour market, we shall be able to have a greater impact on those particularities in her constituency, which are also features of so many hon. Members' constituencies in relation to employment and unemployment.

Tim Boswell: Could not the Minister show a little less bluster and rather more concern that the claimant count has risen for eight consecutive months? That is the longest uphill run of such claims for 13 years. In relation to the Minister's direct responsibility, apart from laying on a rolling programme of cuts to the Jobcentre Plus service in the name of economy, does she intend to do anything positive about that deplorable trend?

Margaret Hodge: I would have hoped that a Front-Bench spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition would look at the figures in the round. If we do so, we can see that there is plenty of good news. The employment rate is now higher than it has been for decades, with more than 2.3 million more people working today than in 1997. Most importantly, we are beginning to tackle the inactivity in employment that was a feature of Britain for generations, and which the Conservatives never attempted to tackle. We now have more than 1 million lone parents in work, and for the first time in decades the number of people on incapacity benefit is beginning to decrease. That is a record of which we are proud. Having said that, as I said in answer to a previous question, we are not complacent about the small rise in the claimant count, which is not because of more people coming on to jobseeker's allowance but because they are staying on it for a little bit longer. I am considering the reasons for that trend, so that I can take appropriate action to reverse it. We have an economy and labour market that are second to none and unparalleled in the world.

Pension Protection Fund

Michael Penning: If he will make a statement on the Pension Protection Fund.

Stewart Jackson: What recent meetings he has had with the business community regarding the operation of the Pension Protection Fund.

Stephen Timms: The Pension Protection Fund opened its doors on 6 April. It compensates members of eligible defined benefit pension schemes if the employer becomes insolvent and the scheme is underfunded so that it cannot pay benefits at least equal to PPF levels of compensation. I discussed the operation of the fund with the new trustee panel last week, and with the chairman of Nestlé UK earlier this month.

Michael Penning: I thank the Minister for that answer. I   am sure that the Pension Protection Fund will help people who pay into pensions in future if they have their pensions stolen, as has happened to former Dexion workers in my constituency. The PPF will not help them today, however, and I hope that the financial assistance scheme will be rolled out by Christmas. When the Secretary of State meets my constituents in the next couple of weeks, will he give them a firm date as to when they are likely to get the compensation that they deserve? Will he not rule out getting funding from sources other than the pension fund that already exists?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the benefits of the PPF in protecting schemes when employers hit problems in future. As he rightly says, however, that is not the case with the Dexion scheme, the wind-up of which commenced before April 2005. The financial assistance scheme is therefore likely to be helpful. I know that Dexion is   being considered for entry to FAS at the moment, and I think that the FAS unit has asked for some further information from the Dexion trustees in order to finalise the decision. I know that the hon. Gentleman is meeting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shortly, and my right hon. Friend will certainly want to bring him up to date with the latest developments.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister will know that the PPF will this year receive some £300 million through a levy. Is he concerned that the independent consultants Hymans Robertson have estimated that as much as £1.5 billion will be needed next year? Do the Government agree with that estimate, and what impact would that have in future years on the risk-based levy?

Stephen Timms: I have seen that figure and several other large-sounding figures being quoted. The PPF is consulting at the moment on the basis for calculating the levy, and will publish its proposals at the end of November. The initial estimate was based on circumstances in December 2003, and changes since then, for example, on interest rates, will no doubt have some impact. The PPF understands extremely well the need to keep the burden manageable for the funds that are paying the levy. I caution the hon. Gentleman against placing too much credence on some of the figures quoted, such as that to which he refers. The fund will publish the outcome of its consultation exercise at the end of next month.

Julian Lewis: The Minister will recall his previous meeting on the question of APW Electronics based in Eastleigh. At least four of my constituents and many more in Eastleigh and Southampton lost 80 per cent. of their pensions when their trustees were forced by a foreign-based arm of the firm to accept a deal that cost them that on pain of the   company otherwise going into liquidation. Throughout the country, only about half a dozen companies are in that situation, and they are not covered by the protection scheme that has been set up or the financial assistance scheme. Can he do something to restore the stolen pensions of my constituents and the constituents of others?

Stephen Timms: I do recall the discussion that we had. As I said to the hon. Gentleman on that occasion, it is our view that, where there is still a solvent employer, as there is in that case, that employer has a duty to ensure that the obligations that it has entered into are honoured. Therefore, he needs to look to the employer to put things right.

Patrick McFadden: The PPF and the financial assistance scheme are welcome new measures of protection, but does the Minister agree that there is still a need for advice about   how the schemes will operate? For example, in   my constituency, many former employees of UPF Thompson Chassis do not know what pension they will be entitled to. Some do not know whether they will be entitled to a pension at all. What steps is the Department taking to communicate with workers in that position to tell them of their rights under the new schemes?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend will find good information, for example, on the Department's website, and the PPF has its own website. There are pages on our website about the financial assistance scheme. If there is any further information I can provide to him or to his constituents, I   will be happy to do so.

Nigel Dodds: May I draw the Minister's attention to the case of the workers at Richardsons IFI plant in north Belfast, for whom the PPF has come too late, although it is a welcome initiative? That company was 49 per cent. owned by ICI, and 51 per cent. owned by the Irish Government. As well as providing assistance from other sources, can the Minister, in his discussions with the Irish Government, put some pressure on them at least to fulfil their morale obligations to the workers of that company and to provide them with a decent pension for the future?

Stephen Timms: The best thing I can do in response to that question is to check out the position on that scheme. When I have done that, I will drop the hon. Gentleman a line and let him know how I intend to proceed.

Nigel Waterson: With estimates of up to £1.5 billion for next year's burden of the PPF levy, does the Minister agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said:
	"The levy will, paradoxically, increase the long-term threat of insolvency of sponsoring companies and their likeliness to draw upon the PPF"?
	What advice would the Minister give a struggling company with a pension fund deficit and poor cash flow: to pay the levy, or to pay the money into its pension fund?

Stephen Timms: I caution the hon. Gentleman to wait until we know the outcome of the work that the PPF is doing on both the total quantum of the levy and the way in which it will be calculated for individual firms. It is broadly accepted that it is in the interests of schemes and of their members that there be support from the PPF. The principle was well established and well accepted across the House. I hope that, when he sees the final conclusion of the work that the PPF is doing, he will agree that it is a good deal for schemes and their members.

Child Support Applications

Anne McIntosh: What the average time taken to process a child support application was in the last period for which figures are available.

James Plaskitt: Between the introduction of the new scheme in March 2003 and September 2005, of those cases cleared, 25 per cent. were cleared in less than six weeks; 22 per cent. were cleared between six and 13 weeks; and another 22 per cent. were cleared between 13 and 26 weeks. Regrettably and completely unacceptably, 14 per cent. took more than a year, bringing the overall average out at 26 weeks.

Anne McIntosh: There we have it. The Government have been in power for eight years and it is still taking at least six weeks to process a child support application. It is totally unacceptable. The assessments are often completely inaccurate. I do not know whether the Minister is aware how much distress that is causing, which is illustrated by the number of people coming into our surgeries. What guarantee will he give that, by June next year, 100 per cent. will be processed within a month?

James Plaskitt: I am perfectly aware of the distress that is caused to constituents when cases do not go well, because they come to my surgery, too. That is exactly the reason why, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in answer to an earlier question, the new chief executive of the agency is undertaking a root and branch review. We will be in a position to report to the House shortly on the outcome of that. Of course one of the objectives is to get the agency operating better, processing cases more quickly and delivering a better quality of service to our constituents.

Mark Lancaster: Does the Minister share my concern at the case of my constituent Mrs. Dzialoszynski, who was told that because the information that she provided could not be entered on the computer system, the decision to enter it as a manual payment was made not by the agency, but by the IT consultants who provided the software?

James Plaskitt: Some cases are handled manually, which is not ideal, as it takes a lot longer than automatic processing. We need an improvement in the IT system; that is exactly what we are discussing at the moment with the supplier. That, too, will form part of the recovery process for the agency, which we hope to be able to bring to the House in the not too distant future.

Pensioners (Norfolk)

Henry Bellingham: What steps he is taking to improve services available from his Department's offices to pensioners in Norfolk.

Anne McGuire: The Government are committed to improving the service provided to all pensioners. The steps in place to improve the services available to pensioners in Norfolk are the same steps that are being taken across the whole of the pension service.

Henry Bellingham: Until recently, pensioners in my constituency had an extremely good Pension Service office in King's Lynn, which was moved to Norwich and now to Burnley. My concern rests around how my pensioner constituents get proper home visits. I have nothing against Burnley, but it is a long way from west Norfolk.

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman is over-egging his own pudding. In fact, there will be no change to home visits. The local Pension Service in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will continue to offer home visits. My attention was drawn to the fact that as a result of some home visits in his area, pensioners have been able to claim back almost £5,000 in backdated and unclaimed benefits. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, although the call centre is moving to another part of the country, that will in no way affect the very personal local service that the Pension Service will continue to give to his and other constituents.

Benefit Payment (Errors)

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on the level of error in the payment of benefits.

Anne McGuire: Although we have made a lot of progress in reducing fraud, we accept that the levels of error remain unacceptably high. We have a duty as a Department to ensure that we administer our benefits as correctly as possible and that our customers are aware of the need to provide necessary information to support their claims and report changes in circumstances quickly. We are also taking steps to increase the accuracy of staff and to encourage our customers to do more to keep their claims correct.

Andrew MacKay: My constituents will think that reply hopelessly complacent. A growing number of them tell me of errors in their benefits claims, which is harmful in many ways. First, it means that people—often the very poorest—are not receiving their correct entitlements; secondly, it means that other people receive too many payments by mistake and find it difficult to pay them back; thirdly, it means that all of us as taxpayers are getting very bad value for money. When is the Minister going to get a grip?

Anne McGuire: First, at least this Government measure the level of fraud and error, something the previous Government did not get around to until 1995. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman said that my answer was complacent, because I admitted that error was a cause for concern. We are putting in place the support mechanisms that are necessary to ensure that our staff realise that error, such as the right hon. Gentleman identifies, is not acceptable. There are two issues to error. One is a process issue, in terms of ensuring that the information is entered and followed through properly; the other is ensuring that customers realise that they have a responsibility to keep the information up to date. If we bring those two things together, we will continue to tackle the error in the system. I leave the right hon. Gentleman with this thought; out of every pound that we pay out in benefit, less than 1p is paid out in error. That is quite a good record.

Bob Blizzard: Does not the worst error of all occur when a claimant has his benefit stopped completely because he is suspected of making a fraudulent claim, only for him subsequently to prove himself completely innocent on appeal? That happened to a constituent of mine, but before he succeeded in his appeal he was evicted, had a county court judgment imposed on him and lost access to his child. He has now been driven further into poverty and despair. Will my hon. Friend look into that case and at what compensation arrangement can be introduced, so that my constituent can be brought back into society?

Anne McGuire: In normal circumstances, we stop benefit only where there is extreme evidence that fraud has been committed. I obviously cannot comment on the specific case that my hon. Friend raises, but I would be delighted to look into it for him if he gives me the details.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Is not the worst single error that of allowing No. 10 Downing street into the benefit payments policy area? Will the Minister confirm the reported view of the No. 10 policy unit that the best way to deal with incapacity benefit payment errors is to reform such payments by means testing them, and to pay at least part of that benefit in vouchers, rather than in cash? Will she confirm that that is Downing street's view, and is it the reason why the incapacity benefit Green Paper that the Prime Minister first promised after the election is now four months overdue?

Anne McGuire: First, the Green Paper is not four months overdue: we made it very clear earlier this year that we would publish it in the autumn. In spite of the obvious enticements offered to me by the right hon. Gentleman today, I shall not give him any public information on the discussions that take place in developing a Green Paper. He and his fellow Front Benchers should hang their heads in shame at what happened to incapacity benefit during the 80s and 90s. They put people on to incapacity benefit to disguise the unemployment figures, and left them languishing there for years.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Gwyn Prosser: What steps he is taking to ensure that new jobseeker claims are expedited in the south-east of England.

Margaret Hodge: I agree with my hon. Friend that more needs to be done to improve the time that it takes   to process jobseeker's allowance claims in the south-east. That is why we have already deployed more resources to areas in the south-east where there is the greatest need, and increased the number of telephone lines available in our customer contact centres. In the coming weeks, I shall review the processes currently in place to ensure that they are working as we intended.

Gwyn Prosser: I am glad that steps are being taken to deal with the growing backlog and the huge delays, but does she agree that it would be more sensible to halt the sacking of the hard-working civil servants who serve my constituents in Dover and Deal, until the new computer systems and contact centres are up and running and proven?

Margaret Hodge: No staff member in my hon. Friend's part of the country has been sacked. There has been a slight reduction in the number of staff, but that is through natural wastage. I hope that by the end of this year, the processing of JSA claims in his constituency will be back to the national target of 12 days that we set ourselves.

Child Poverty

Barbara Keeley: What estimate he has made of the number of children lifted out of poverty since 1997.

Margaret Hodge: The latest figures show that the number of children living in relatively low-income households fell, after housing costs, by 700,000 between 1997 and 2004. Eradicating child poverty is a central and   ambitious objective of this Government. Tackling poverty is only partly about low income. Action is necessary on many fronts, including health, housing, education and the quality of the environment.

Barbara Keeley: Little Hulton ward, in my constituency, is ranked among the worst 7 per cent. of wards nationally for deprivation. Given that work is the best route of out of poverty, will my right hon. Friend join me in endorsing the Little Hulton children's centre, which, when it opens next year, will combine a Sure Start nursery unit with a crèche for parents involved in training? Most importantly, staff will link up with Jobcentre Plus to help with searching for jobs and to give advice to lone parents.

Margaret Hodge: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming that latest development to tackle disadvantage and poverty among families in her constituency. The joined-up approach of the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education and Skills in the children's centre is testimony to our wish to put families and their children at the heart of what we do, and build services that best meet their needs and lift them out of poverty.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Minister comment on a problem faced by my constituent, Mr. Michael May, who was awarded custody of his children for two days a week but was unable to obtain benefit to reflect the fact that he had custody? If the Government seriously wish to tackle child poverty, would it not be more equitable to divide benefits between two parents in cases where there are joint custody arrangements?

Margaret Hodge: I am a bit puzzled by the hon. Lady's question, although I am willing to look at that individual case if she writes to me. I am not sure whether she is suggesting that the benefit entitlement that follows the children should be divided between the father and mother. If so, that would be unfortunate for the main carer—the mother. However, if she writes to me with the details, I would be happy to examine the particulars of the case.

Financial Assistance Scheme

Danny Alexander: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the level of funding for the financial assistance scheme.

Stephen Timms: As with any new policy, we discuss developments with the relevant Government Departments. The Chancellor confirmed last month that the level of funding for the financial assistance scheme would be reviewed in the next spending round.

Danny Alexander: In discussions on the next spending round, will the Minister bear in mind the plight of people such as constituents of mine who have missed the cut-off date for assistance under the scheme, in some cases by only a few days? Some people aged 58 are entitled to assistance while others aged 62 are not. Can funding be made available to deal with some of the anomalies in the system?

Stephen Timms: Our approach is to prioritise individuals who need help most urgently, namely those who are closest to their scheme pension age. Such people have been helped by the scheme thus far, but we will know more about the potential costs and liabilities when all the data from schemes have been collected at the end of   the current notification period, which ends on 28 February. We are assembling all that data, and they will give us a good basis for looking at the question of whether we can extend the scheme when the review is carried out.

Returning to Work

Siobhain McDonagh: How many people have returned to work since 1997.

Margaret Hodge: I am delighted to answer my hon.   Friend's question. Employment has increased by 2.332 million since 1997. Our employment rate, at 74.8 per cent., is the highest of the G7 countries, and one of the highest in the world. Since 1997, employment has risen strongly, unemployment is down and the number of economically inactive people has started to fall.

Siobhain McDonagh: In constituencies such as mine in suburban south London, the new deal has been a terrific success, but there is still a hard core of young people whose educational and family background makes it challenging for them to find work. Does my right hon. Friend have any proposals to introduce schemes that would deepen and intensify the new deal for that particularly difficult group?

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend is right to point to the small group of young people who are neither in education nor in training and employment. We have introduced a number of financial measures, including education maintenance allowances, and training measures such as a scheme that we want to run in conjunction with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills. We hope that our collective approach to tackling the problem will bring that small number of people who are locked into inactivity and are outside society closer to the labour market. It is a difficult last nut to crack, but we are determined to try to do so.

Philip Hollobone: In the Kettering constituency, there is a large and growing shortage of key workers in the local health service, not   least among midwives. What measures is the   Department taking to encourage highly trained personnel to return to our vital public services?

Margaret Hodge: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is anxious that we should increase the number of people working in the health service, because all too often Opposition Members attack us for the expenditure on it and the growth in employment in it. I   recognise the issue that he raises, and we need to introduce more flexible working and other attractive measures to bring back into the health service some of   the people who may have left to care for their children or others in the home. We have introduced many measures already and a Bill will be introduced this Session to provide greater flexibility for people working throughout the economy, including the right to ask for flexible working when their children are older and if they are carers. I hope that that will assist with the problem the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Anne Begg: Aberdeen is booming at present, thanks to high oil prices. I   appreciate that not all hon. Members think that that is a good thing, but it certainly is in the north-east of Scotland. As a result, unemployment is low and there are real labour shortages, especially in the construction industry. One of the local charities, Aberdeen Foyer, has been successfully delivering the build and train new deal, but the Government will withdraw the funding for that next year. I know that my right hon. Friend has already agreed to meet people from the Foyer to discuss the matter, but I hope that the Government will consider the   importance of some of those new deals that deal with the most marginal young people and get those whom the previous Government had written off successfully back to work, as well as plugging some of   the gaps in the labour shortage.

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend has spoken to me about the ambitions project in her constituency, of which the Foyer is part. Some areas of the country have had successful pilots on which we want to build and from which we want to learn lessons. The trick that we pulled, which we must spread more widely, was linking the skills needs of employers to the state in its various guises, whether it be the Department for Education and Skills or my Department, to get individuals with the relevant competencies but who are outside the labour market or unemployed to fill the jobs. If those three parts work together—the individual, the state and the employer—we have a route to filling some of the skills gaps and tackling the inactivity in the labour market that is the challenge for this term of the Labour Government.

Nicholas Winterton: How many "older" workers have returned to work since 1997? As the Minister will be aware—I am very much   aware of it—older workers often have very good skills—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] They also have experience, and I back experience.

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman and I both have an interest to declare in this issue. In 1997, the employment rate for those over 50 was 64.7 per cent.; in spring this year, it had risen by 6 percentage points to 70.7 per cent. There is still a gap with the national employment rate of just under 4 per cent., but we are narrowing it. Our very successful new deal for 50-plus has brought back into work more than 150,000 older workers. We want to go further and build on that successful strategy.

Child Tax Credit

Greg Mulholland: If he will make a statement on the transfer to child tax credit of the remaining families with children in receipt of income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance.

James Plaskitt: All new claimants for income support and jobseeker's allowance receive child tax credits rather than an increase in their benefits. As I made clear in an answer in June, the timing of the transfer of cases to tax credits will be subject to a final review and an announcement will be made in due course. I again reassure the hon. Gentleman that no one is losing out: the increases in the benefits associated with children are set at the same level as child tax credit.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Minister for that answer to a question that I did not actually expect to get to ask. Having started at 25, I seem to be rising up the ranks nearly as fast as the hon. Member for Witney (Mr.   Cameron).
	Less than two weeks ago, the parliamentary ombudsman used the phrase "systematic maladministration" about the automatic recovery of overpayment of tax credits. Will the Minister give us an assurance that, until the ombudsman is satisfied that there is no longer systematic maladministration, the group of families so hard hit by it will not be transferred across?

James Plaskitt: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman finally got to his question. Probably the best thing I can do is to tell him what the ombudsman actually said. Referring to her report on the matter, she said:
	"This report does not suggest that the new tax credit system is in general disarray; on the contrary it recognises that, given the scale of the undertaking, its introduction has been broadly successful."

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill
	 — 
	Order for Second Reading read.

Peter Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Before I turn to the Bill itself, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a statement issued last night in the name of the Loyalist Volunteer Force indicating that what they describe as their "military units" have been ordered to stand down. As the House will know, over the summer the LVF and the Ulster Volunteer Force have been engaged in a grisly feud, which has cost four lives. I welcome any move that brings such murderous violence to an end.
	The statement is, therefore, a step forward which I   hope will give encouragement to those who are working to establish the primacy of politics in their communities. Of course, words must also be matched by deeds from all loyalist groups. What we need to see is the full decommissioning of all paramilitary arsenals and a complete and permanent end to all paramilitary and criminal activity from all paramilitary groups. In welcoming the statement, I can also say that hearing the president of Sinn Fein use the words "the war is over"—words that we have wanted to hear for such a long time—is a further sign that we are continuing to move in the right direction.
	We are all haunted by what has occurred in Northern Ireland during the troubles. Members of the House and the other place have been personally affected. Others will have vivid memories of scenes of terrorist atrocities reported in the media.
	During the loyalist and republican terrorist campaigns more than 3,000 people lost their lives, families have been torn apart and victims left bereft. In 1972 alone, the worst year of violence, 497 people were killed and nearly 5,000 were injured. So far this year, there have been just five fatal attacks. Those are, of course, five deaths too many, but nevertheless the situation has changed dramatically from the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s.
	The legislative response to terrorism has also changed over the last 30 years as the counter-capability responds to the level of threat. In particular, special provision has been required to counter terrorism and for the use of the armed forces in support of the police. Those provisions have evolved over time in response to changing terrorist tactics to ensure that the agencies can respond effectively to terrorism.
	The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 was the first piece of legislation to focus on tackling the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. It provided non-jury Diplock courts to overcome problems of juror intimidation by paramilitaries and gave special powers to the police and armed forces in Northern Ireland to stop, to search and to enter premises. It applied only in Northern Ireland.
	Following attacks by the IRA in Birmingham in 1974,   Parliament passed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, which gave additional powers of arrest and detention to police and applied throughout the United Kingdom. Those Acts were extended and renewed a number of times in subsequent years. The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 was passed as a response to the Omagh bombing of 15 August 1998.
	All of that legislation was re-enacted and extended, culminating in the Terrorism Act 2000, which was intended to combat all forms of terrorism, not just terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. The 2000 Act placed anti-terrorism laws largely on a permanent footing in the United Kingdom, in line with the recommendations made by Lord Lloyd of Berwick's "Inquiry into legislation against terrorism" and the proposals in the Home Office consultation document, "Legislation against Terrorism". However, the 2000 Act continued to contain temporary provision that was designed to tackle the specific threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland and that applies only there. Those temporary provisions are contained in part VII of that Act.
	Since the 2000 Act was passed, there have been further changes to the permanent law on terrorism. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the   Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 further refined and extended the range of options available to deal with   the terrorist threat. The Home Secretary has now   brought further measures before Parliament to strengthen our capacity to tackle the latest threats from terrorism.
	The Northern Ireland temporary powers have also evolved since they were first enacted in 1973, responding effectively to the particular threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland at any given time.

John Bercow: I welcome the Secretary of State's opening remarks. Will the order-making power in clause 1(3) be subject to the negative procedure of the House or to its affirmative counterpart?

Peter Hain: The affirmative procedure will be used, given the importance attached to that matter.
	Those provisions have been on a temporary footing since 1973, but have been necessary to tackle the security situation. They were never intended to be permanent, and we have always remained committed to their ultimate removal, once the security situation allowed. The provisions expire early next year. Without further legislation, provided by the Bill, they would not be available beyond 18 February 2006.
	We have reviewed the necessity for the part VII provisions each year. Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000—I am indebted to him for his continuing work—has conducted his own external review. I received a letter from Lord Carlile this morning—I have placed a copy in the Libraries of both Houses—in which he said:
	"In sum, I remain of the view that, in terms of the prevention of terrorism, some special powers remain necessary. Were there not such powers in the Bill, I would be driven to the conclusion that there would be a risk of more terrorist acts connected with the island of Ireland rather than less."

Greg Mulholland: I refer to the Carlile report and agree with the Secretary of State's sentiments, but why are we having this discussion before that report has been published?

Peter Hain: I received Lord Carlile's letter only this morning. Obviously, the debate on Second Reading has been scheduled for a while, but I want to place on record again the fact that he does invaluable work in advising the Government in this respect on Northern Ireland, and we are very grateful to him indeed.

Julian Lewis: Did Lord Carlile's letter indicate the sources from which he anticipated that further acts of terror would come if the regulations were relaxed?

Peter Hain: No, the letter did not indicate that, but allow me to cite another of the important points in Lord   Carlile's letter that the hon. Gentleman and the House will want to hear. He said:
	"In my view the duration of the powers proposed in the Bill is justified on the merits and proportional."
	The word "proportional" is very appropriate.
	Each year Parliament has approved the continued use of the provisions and agreed that they are an appropriate response to the threat. Earlier this year we identified several provisions relating to bail and the treatment of juveniles that were no longer needed and took them out of force. Last year, we lapsed a provision on port and border controls with no ill effect. All that has happened because the security situation in Northern Ireland has improved and other structural and legislative developments have meant that some of the provisions are no longer necessary.

Lembit �pik: Given that the letter that the Secretary of State quotes is obviously of considerable importance to the debate, would it not be prudent to provide all hon. Members who intend to participate in the debate with a copy, so that we do not all have to trail off to the Library? If the right hon.   Gentleman is citing that letter, I stress that it is reasonable for every one of us to receive a copy because otherwise we will be at a disadvantage during the debate.

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I saw the letter only in the mid-morning. I have only had the chance to look at it and refer to it in my speech. I shall put a copy in the Library as soon as possible.

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a sense I am making a procedural request, so perhaps I   should not have asked that question of the Secretary of State. Would it be possible for you to arrange for copies of the letter to be provided to hon. Members, because it would be helpful to all of us during the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Secretary of State is indicating that he will do so.

Peter Hain: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly make arrangements for photocopies to be made available to hon. Members who wish to have them. I am sorry that the circumstances were such that they did not receive them earlier.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking another intervention it will be quick. He really needs to clarify the inconsistency of his approach in recent weeks. We are being asked to approve terrorism legislation that will extend part VII for at least two years, and perhaps another year on top of that, on the basis that the security situation, as determined at the present time, makes the provisions necessary. How can he reconcile a Bill that we are being asked to pass on that assessment with the facts that he has already indicated that Sinn Fein's allowances will be returned in the Assembly, that he will recommend in a few weeks that Sinn Fein Members' allowances in this House should be returned, and that Royal Irish Regiment home battalions should be disbanded? Before we go any further, will he reconcile the two irreconcilable points of view that are coming out of the Northern Ireland Office?

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Lady's points, which she makes with her normal courtesy and force. However, it is clear that we are trying to progress the politics and ensure that we get a permanent end to   violenceincluding that from the IRA, in relation to her point about allowances. At the same time, to ensure that the safety and security of each individual citizen in Northern Ireland is not jeopardised in any way by any retrograde action, we are putting in place necessary provisions through the Bill. It is consistent to move forward the politics while adopting the prudent approach of safeguarding the position if there were a terrorist outbreak by perhaps dissident republicans, or the remaining active loyalist groups that have not done what the Loyalist Volunteer Force announced overnight.

Patrick Cormack: Does not what the Secretary of State has said this afternoon, and indeed his reply to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), underline the wisdom of him giving the House the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of the on-the-runs legislation with which we are threatened?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I dealt with   that matter last week when I gave evidence to his   Committee and he questioned me closely on it. The on-the-runs legislation is of course entirely separate from the Bill.

Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that many people in Northern Ireland think that this progress is capitulation and is not going to help? There is the view that many things are moving the situation in one wayespecially in favour of the IRAand we also have this legislation. Surely there is a contradiction. It is not possible to have it both ways. Either things are not good in Northern Ireland or else things are good in Northern Ireland. Those of us who live there know exactly what the answer to that is.

Peter Hain: The soon-to-be right hon. Gentleman makes a point about a judgment on this matter. We are right to bring the Bill before the House today, and I am sure that he will welcome it later on. We are right to do that as a prudent safety mechanism just in case there is a repeat of the threatperhaps by a dissident republican group or one of the loyalist groups that has not yet announced that it is disarming and standing down in the way that the LVF haswhich we need to be in a position to meet. As the normalisation measures are taken forward in terms of reducing the number of armed forces and so, I am sure that every citizen in Northern Ireland will be reassured that we have, as a fall-back, legislation that has been necessary in recent years.

Lady Hermon: May I sum up the message coming from the Secretary of State? We are taking the Bill through the House because he believes that we are still under threat from dissident republicans and perhaps loyalist paramilitaries, but that we are under no threat from the Provisional IRA. Is he really saying that to the people of Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: The Bill creates an enabling environment. That is why the time frame is put in the way that it is.   As   regards the promises that the IRA made on 28   July and the decommissioning of its arsenal, which   General John de Chastelain announced on 26   September, and the consequences that that will have for activity on the ground, which the hon. Lady and I   want closed down for good, we will have to await the reports of the Independent Monitoring Commissionthe next one is due in Januaryto see what has been delivered and whether the promises have been kept.
	While the security situation is far from perfectthe violent events at Whiterock last month are evidence of thatno one could deny that the security situation has changed fundamentally as a result of the events of the past couple of months. On 28 July 2005, the Provisional IRA made an historic statement, announcing an end to the armed conflict and ordering all members to dump arms. In response, I announced on 1 August 2005 the triggering of a programme of security normalisation measures. That sees a gradual reduction in the security infrastructure in Northern Ireland and a reduction in troop numbers to garrison level, and culminates in the repeal of counter-terrorism legislation particular to Northern Ireland.
	On 26 September 2005, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that the totality of the IRA's arsenal had been put beyond use. Like the statement on 28 July, that was a seismic step by the IRA, but we need to be sure that it has ended paramilitary and criminal activity for good. The January report of the IMC will help us to make that assessment.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State refers to the triggering of the   implementation of the so-called normalisation aspects of the joint declaration. Will he confirm that that   was agreed as part of negotiations involving the pro-agreement parties in the run-up to the joint declaration? Does he recognise that since that agreement things have changed in Northern Ireland and that people are rightly concerned that what is being followed is a timetable that is now out of date and does not apply to the circumstances that prevail politically in Northern Ireland today?

Peter Hain: I can confirm that the pro-agreement parties were consulted and gave their general endorsement to the joint declaration in 2003. That was the statement that pre-announced all the matters about which I reminded everyone in early August. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents have many deep concerns about the pace of those normalisation procedures. We are having a separate discussion about the position of the Royal Irish Regiment home battalions, and the Democratic Unionist party has put some very good points to me about how that should be handled, particularly the levels of redundancy, about which there is much concern in many of the communities where soldiers and their families have made tremendous sacrifices over the years, sometimes with their lives. The points made by the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev.   Ian Paisley) and other DUP Members are well taken. I have had recent discussions with the Chief of the Defence Staff on the matter, and he is seized of the importance that I attach to proper provision and is well aware of the concerns that exist, particularly in those Unionist communities that have suffered so much over the last years.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I   appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Royal Irish Regiment. We have been meeting regularly with many of the soldiers, and I am aware of their concerns, but they are now being told that it could be January next year before they are given an indication of what the package is likely to be and how much compensation they will receive. Will the Secretary of State, in his ongoing discussions with the Secretary of   State for Defence, press the point that there is a need to remove the uncertainty over their future, as we will be doing?

Peter Hain: First, I acknowledge the particular work that the hon. Gentleman has put into this matter. I know of his previous involvement with the Royal Irish Regiment and that of his families; that gives him a particular expertise and authority to speak on this. I   have made it clear, as I have to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defencein the end this is an MOD matter, although I am batting for the people of Northern Ireland on this issue, as the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have asked me to doand last week to the Chief of the Defence Staff, that it is important that the families and the men and women involved know what their future is as soon as possible. In the end it is not a matter for me, but if it is possible to obtain a decision before Christmas, that would be very desirable, and I have made that clear. But I do not want to press too fast and too hard and get an earlier decision that is not a good one. I would rather have a good one even though I agree that it is essential that it is made as soon as possible, and ideally before Christmas.
	In the context of a changed Northern Ireland, the Government will press ahead with commitments to normalisation.

Lady Hermon: Before the Secretary of State moves on to more details about the normalisation programme that he has undertaken with his colleagues, will he just confirm and clarify that there is a world of difference between consulting the pro-agreement parties about the   joint declaration and having agreement from the pro-agreement parties?

Peter Hain: I understand the point that that hon. Lady is making in defence of the Ulster Unionist party, which has played an honourable role in bringing forward the peace process. I doubt whether we would have been where we are today in terms of the statements of 28 July and 26 September on an end to the IRA's armed campaign and the decommissioning of its arsenal had it not been for the courage shown by the then leader of the UUP.
	When I published the normalisation programme on 1 August, I made it clear that my priority is the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland. That is   the first duty that I have as Secretary of State. Nothing will be done to jeopardise that. The completion of the normalisation programme must be subject to an enabling environment being sustained. That is why I am bringing legislation before the House today instead of letting the provisions expire next February. The Bill provides that the part VII provisions will continue in force until 31 July 2007. Because I will not take chances with the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland, the Bill also contains the option to extend the provisions for up to one year thereafter until July 2008.

Lorely Burt: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has called for the repeal of part VII and schedule 9 of the Terrorism Act 2000, relating to the working of the Diplock courts? Obviously, it is very important that in times gone by families and jurors were protected by having a single judge making decisions in that way. However, it has been suggested that one step towards normalisation might be to have one judge instead of three judges, so that confidence in the judicial system could be greatly enhanced among people on all sides.

Peter Hain: I am sure that Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will agree that there is now confidence in the legal system right across the communities. Of course I take account of the statement that the Human Rights Commission made earlier this year, but I take particular account of the advice from Lord Carlile, the independent assessor who has considered these matters in great detail. We want to look very carefully at what happens in future in every respect and monitor the progress that has occurred over recent years. The number of Diplock trials is now so small that some of the hon. Lady's concerns no longer apply.

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State will recall that I asked him whether Lord Carlile's letter indicated where he thought threats might still come from. As if by magic, copies of that letter have now appeared, and I see that it did in fact say:
	On the other side is the Commission's conclusion that paramilitaries, especially Loyalists and dissident Republicans, continue to exert a malign influence over communities.
	That was the justification for his statement, and I   thought it just as well to get it on the record.

Peter Hain: I think that that point is rather different from the one that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier, but I am happy to agree that that is indeed contained in Lord Carlile's letter. I am advised that there are now copies of the letter in the Vote Office as well as in the Library.

Nicholas Winterton: Many Conservative Members will support the legislation because we believe that it is beyond belief that the complete arsenal of Sinn Fein-IRA has been decommissioned. That view is shared by tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State explain why he is not prepared to be more transparent about the decommissioning of the IRA's complete arsenal? Why cannot the statement made by General John de Chastelain and the two witnesses be made more transparent not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to the people of this country, who believe that Sinn Fein-IRA may be merely playing a waiting game to see whether it can gain more of what it wants by doing what it has done, but that that was not a complete decommissioning of its arsenal?

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's points about transparency. In an ideal world, that would have been ideal. Unfortunately, we may not have got the decommissioning that we thought. It is not for me to determine the exact arrangements. There is an international independent commission headed by General John de Chastelain and eminent colleagues who are also internationally respected right across the world, as well as, on this occasion, two independent clergymen who witnessed what happened. That should give some confidence to the process.

Ian Paisley: If the Secretary of State is of a mind to appoint more judges in Northern Ireland, will he assure us that it will not be done on a 50:50 basis?

Peter Hain: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not a great fan of the 50:50 principle, because he has frequently railed against it to me and in public. I will bear in mind what he has said.

Lembit �pik: On Diplock courts, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for ensuring that we have all received copies of Lord Carlile's letter. Lord Carlile does not commit himself unequivocally one way or the other on Diplock courts, although he states:
	I am unlikely to conclude that it is yet time for their total removal.
	What is the Secretary of State's view on a three-judge system? Does he buy the argument that a three-judge system would be fairer than a one-judge system for Diplock courts?

Peter Hain: As I have said, Diplock courts operate very rarely indeed. The situation is transformed from years ago, when terrorist attacks occurred almost every day. We will continue to examine the matter, and I will consider trials involving paramilitaries, where juries could be subject to intimidation. However, I do not want to prejudge the outcome of my considerations by commenting on any particular model.

Lady Hermon: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State, who has been very generous in taking interventions this afternoon, and rightly so. Will he clarify whether the Diplock courts will continue if the security situation has not improved in two years' time and an extension is required in three years' time? There is no guarantee that the security situation will improve, which is why we are debating this legislation this afternoon. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment that Diplock courts will continue?

Peter Hain: It is because there are no guarantees of an absolute, final kind that we are introducing the Bill, which will allow us to continue to use the powers in current legislation after next February. We have used those powers, which act as a powerful deterrent to, for example, dissidents who want to up the paramilitary ante. Let us see where we are in two years' time, and if a further year of renewal is required, we will make a   judgment and the House will decide the matter by Order in Council.

Lady Hermon: The Secretary of State must clarify the issue, which is crucial and impinges on other provisions in the Bill. I am sorry if Democratic Unionist party Members are exasperated, but the matter requires clarification. Under the Bill, breaches of control orders, which have been available in Northern Ireland since spring this year, will be regarded as scheduled offences and will be tried by Diplock courts. Control orders have   recently been introduced throughout the United Kingdom to deal with international terrorists and, presumably, domestic terrorism, too. If Diplock courts are not available, is the Secretary of State saying that we must re-examine how we deal with breaches of control orders?

Peter Hain: As I have said, I am confident that we are seeing an end to paramilitarism, and it is extremely unlikely that control orders will prove to be necessary in   a normalised environment in Northern Ireland. However, the option of issuing control orders in response to an exceptional situation in the interests of public safety would be available to any future Secretary of State, myself included.

Tom Harris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying the procedure. He has said that a statutory instrument will be used if the provisions must be extended into a third year. If we must extend the provisions for an extra year beyond 2007, would it not be more appropriate for the whole House to vote?

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but we have developed a procedure for handling these matters in a Northern Ireland context that has worked quite well.
	As I have said, if the enabling environment is not sustained, we should not hesitate to take the option of extending the provisions for a further year. We will not leave the police and other agencies without the tools that they need to protect the people of Northern Ireland.
	In addition to those assurances, it should be borne in mind that the UK now has some of the strongest and most effective permanent counter-terrorism legislation in the world, which applies as much to Northern Ireland as it does to the rest of the UK. As I said earlier, the House will consider another terrorism Bill later in the week.
	As well as maintaining the part VII provisions for the   normalisation period, the Bill makes some small but important reforms to counter-terrorism arrangements. The first reform will allow the Attorney-General to remove any case from the Diplock system if he believes that it does not relate to terrorism in Northern Ireland. Currently a small number of offences must be tried under Diplock regardless of whether they are related to Northern Ireland terrorism or not.
	Diplock courts were brought in because of the penetration of paramilitaries in the community in Northern Ireland, and the risk of intimidation that that created. They should not have to be used in cases in which that risk does not arise, and the Bill corrects the anomaly.
	The proposed changes will also give the Attorney-General discretion in regard to all the offences in schedule 9 to the Terrorism Act 2000, allowing him to deschedule any offence that is not deemed to be relevant to terrorism in Northern Ireland. Lord Carlile has said
	This seems to me a sensible and useful change.
	The Bill provides that should any individual breach a control order in Northern Ireland, the case could be handled as a scheduled offence if appropriate. It also creates a power to make any necessary interim provisions to ensure a smooth transition to normalised arrangements.
	A measured approach is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the criminal justice agencies under normalised conditions, and I believe that that is what we have achieved with the Bill. Security normalisation is a goal for which we must strive. We all want Northern Ireland to be a safe place. But normalisation can only occur if the conditions are right, and we will not take chances with the safety of the people of Northern Ireland or the effective operation of the justice system. That is why the Bill extends the provisions for a further period rather than letting them expire in February next year, and keeps open the option of retaining them until 2008.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

David Lidington: I begin by associating the Opposition with the Secretary of State's words of thanks and appreciation to Lord Carlile of Berriew. There is no doubt that his annual reports on the operation of the part VII powers provide a very thorough and impartial analysis, which I think all Members who take an interest in these matters find very valuable.
	I agree with the Government that it is right to extend the part VII powers further, and if there is a Division tonight I shall encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government. I also agree with the principle that we should continue to treat them as exceptional powersas measures that are justified by the gravity of the security situation in Northern Ireland. I therefore think it right for these exceptional measures to continue to be subject to a time limit, to the need for regular parliamentary scrutiny and renewal, or indeed to both.
	When I first read the Bill, I was concerned by what seemed to me to be an implicit message from the Government that after 2008 at the latest, none of the   powers would be needed. I feel that the House has been given a degree of assurance by the Secretary of State that the Government recognise that that might not turn out to be so, and that certain exceptional powers might continue to be necessary after 2008. That appeared to be borne out by the Independent Monitoring Commission's most recent report.
	The IMC described the Ulster Volunteer Force as active, violent and ruthless and commented that
	it remains an extremely dangerous organisation.
	It said that the Ulster Defence Association was
	an active threat to the rule of law in Northern Ireland.
	It commented on the Loyalist Volunteer Force and, although I, too, welcome last night's statement from the LVF, we shall judge it by what it does and what it ceases to do from now on rather than by the statement that it put out over the weekend.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I can appreciate the hon. Gentleman's scepticism, which is shared on these Benches, about statements by paramilitary organisations that have a history of murder and mayhem. However, will he join me   in expressing gratitude to the church leaders and   representatives, community leaders and political representatives who worked hard on the ground to bring about both an end to the feud between the UVF and the LVF, which resulted in four tragic deaths in the summer, and the LVF's statement that it is standing its units down? Does he agree that precisely that sort of positive pressure from the Unionist community can lead to results? He will note that the LVF's statement was issued without any concessions being made to it.

David Lidington: I am happy to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the clergymen and community leaders. In the two years that I have held my current responsibilities, it has been borne in on me that, although the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland is frequently attributed to differences in religion, on the ground, clergymen and religious leaders of all denominations often lead the way in trying to build trust between people from different communities.

Peter Hain: May I associate myself with the hon.   Gentleman's point and agree with those that the hon.   Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) made? The leadership that clergymen and community leaders have shown in difficult conditions is exemplary. They have produced an outcome and I hope that the influence of their outstanding leadership can be extended to the activities of the UVF and the UDA.

David Lidington: I agree with the Secretary of State and am grateful for those remarks.

Nigel Dodds: Coming from Belfast, North, which has suffered terribly because of the feud, I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and of other hon. Members. Does the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr.   Lidington) agree that it is tragic that so many people have had to die this summer because of that feud? In my constituency, the family of Craig McCausland are still looking for justice for the murder of their loved one. The Government, the police and everyone must continue that quest for justice on behalf of the bereaved families. Although I welcome the positive development, the quest for justice must go on.

David Lidington: The quest for justice must certainly continue and no Government of any political colour could ever believe it right to neglect the raw grief of victims and their families. The sense of loss and injustice remains for many years after murder or attack by terrorists, whatever the paramilitary organisation.
	The IMC commented on not only loyalist but republican paramilitary groups. It described the so-called Real IRA as violent, dangerous and determined. Given the events of recent months and the responsibility of the Provisional IRA for the majority of the murders in Northern Ireland over three decades of the troubles, perhaps the IMC's most significant comments were about PIRA.
	I take slight issue with the Secretary of State's commentwhich I paraphrasethat no one could deny that there had been a fundamental change in the security situation in Northern Ireland over the past few months. I certainly hope that the IRA's statement and   the act of decommissioning will herald such a fundamental transformation, but I am still waiting for additional evidence of it.
	Paragraph 3.13 of the IMC report states quite plainly that
	the leadership of the republican movement has shown a capacity in the past to turn on and off the tap of violence.
	Paragraph 3.18 goes on to say of the provisionals that
	it is too early to be drawing firm conclusions about possible overall changes in behaviour.
	The attitude of the British Government towards the normalisation programme and towards other measuresparticularly those that the republican movement itself wants to see happenshould be conditioned by those words of caution and scepticism uttered by the Independent Monitoring Commission.
	Before we can be convinced that the transformation that the Secretary of State described is complete, we need clear evidence of further changessome practical and some ideological in character. On the practical side, we need to see the decommissioning not only of weaponsimportant though that step undoubtedly wasbut of the paramilitary organisations and the paramilitary command structure. If the republican movement has fundamentally changed, and if that change is indeed permanent and irreversible, it should have no need of a private army. If, on the other hand, the republican movement tells us that it needs the structure of the IRA in order to impose discipline on its followers and to ensure that everyone is signed up to the move towards democracy, what does that tell us about the hearts and minds of its many followers? At the very least, it surely leaves a question mark over the extent and genuine nature of the move by the republican movement towards democracy.

Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a third possible reason why the IRA might be reluctant to dismantle its paramilitary structures? That is its record of criminal activity, which amounts to a mafia-type operation involving the robbing of banks and many other activities that it would be loth to give up, even if it has called off the political war.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly right. Republican and loyalist paramilitary groups use crime as a means of financing their organisations and providing a livelihood for large numbers of activists, and as a meansthrough protection rackets and the likeof imposing their control and their rule over republican or loyalist estates, rather than submitting to the rule of law, which is what we would expect any democratic political movement to do.

Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best test to which the IRA could be put would be to ask it to give up its ill-gotten gains, and to give back the money that it stole from the bank, to prove to the people that it had quit its criminality?

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is right. Although I have genuinely welcomed the statements and actions that have come from the provisional republican movement over the past few months, I cannot drive out of my mind either the fact that those same republicans were talking a year ago about a comprehensive political agreement for Northern Ireland while planning the Northern bank raid. In addition, earlier this year, we had that appalling murder in the centre of Belfast, in which it seems that the forensic clean-up operation was carried out by people who had knowledge of what needed to be done to stop the police having any clues as to the perpetrators. Certainly, a great deal of comment has come from people living in that area to the effect that known members of the Provisional IRA were behind that clean-up operation. Of course, people in that republican bar who witnessed the murder have been very reluctant to come forward, and I have yet to hear the leaders of provisional Sinn Fein urge their supporters who have information about murder or other serious crime to come forward with that to the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the courts so that people can be brought to justice.

Ian Paisley: It should also be underlined that the family is now driven out of the area completely. The last member of a family who have been there for something like 200 years has now moved out.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is again right. The fact that members of the McCartney family have had to move house because of the brave public stand that they took offers its own eloquent comment that, as yet, we are very far from a normal state of affairs in Northern Ireland.

Patrick Cormack: Is not the way in which people have behaved towards the McCartney family another aspect of terrorism in the literal sense?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend puts it very well.
	We require a profound ideological change from an organisation that regards itself, as the IRA's constitution asserts, as the legitimate government of Ireland, both north and south, to show that it has become a genuinely democratic organisation that supports the police and upholds the rule of law. I have no problem with debating or fighting elections against a democratic movement that loathes the partition of Ireland and yearns for a united Irish republic, provided that that body accepts the principle that constitutional change can come only through the free consent of the people, and works within the constitutional structures of Northern Ireland, within the rule of law, in order to achieve its objectives.
	For the purposes of this argument, let us be optimisticlet us lay the scepticism to one side and assume that the Provisional IRA completes that transition from terrorism to democracy. What, then, would be the situation in 2007 or 2008? We have seen little concrete evidence yet that the major loyalist paramilitaries are about to cease their violence, intimidation or involvement in crime. We know, too, that dissident republicans remain a serious threat. The independent assessor of military complaints procedures, in his report for 2004, listed 44 serious incidents attributed to republican dissidents, and only weeks ago we saw a vicious attack on the deputy chairman of the Policing Board, leaving that brave man with severe injuries as a consequence. I find it impossible to believe, even on the most optimistic assumptions that we can make this afternoon, that by 2008 we will be in a position in which none of the part VII powers continue to be needed. As Lord Carlile put it in his most recent report, at paragraph 2.9:
	It seems reasonably likely that syndicated crime with a paramilitary connection . . . is a clear and potentially permanent part of the criminal intelligence picture of Northern Ireland.
	He continued in paragraph 2.11:
	On both sides of the sectarian divide, there continues a clear danger of intimidation within living and working neighbourhoods.
	As the Independent Monitoring Commission pointed out:
	Unreported acts of intimidation are far more numerous than acts of violence, are often traumatic in their impact and are not recorded in statistics.
	If we are trying to ensure that we have in place a system of criminal justice procedure that gives law-abiding citizens the courage to come forward with information and not to fear retaliation, we need to be aware that that fear of paramilitaries remains acute.
	The Northern Ireland Office's most recent statistical bulletin, number 11/2005, showed that no fewer than 40 per cent. of people interviewed said that they were unlikely to report someone if they knew that that person had been involved in serious crime. We all know the   reasons for that reluctance. It is not sympathy for the criminals. It is fear. It is terror of retaliation against oneself or one's family.
	So what will happen in 2007 or 2008? The Secretary of State said that he is still considering possible options. He has known for a long time, as did his predecessor, that part VII would have to be replaced by February 2006, so I suspect that a review of some sort must have taken place in the Northern Ireland Office. I wonder whether, sitting in a pending tray at Hillsborough, there are revised proposals that are ready to be made if and when that proves necessary, or do the Government have in mind relying on powers incorporated into United Kingdom counter-terrorist and criminal justice legislation? For example, does the Secretary of State expect the powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that allow for non-jury trials in cases of possible jury tampering to be applied after 2007 or 2008 to Northern Ireland for the sort of cases that we have been debating?
	There are various detailed matters in the Bill that we may wish to explore further in Standing Committee, but I want to touch briefly on three further points.

Lady Hermon: Since the hon. Gentleman's party has shown a notable reluctance in the House to support any Government legislation that removes juries from trials, can he confirm for the record that, if the Secretary of State were to opt for that, he and his colleagues would fully support the use of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland under the procedures already available in Northern Irelandthey came into force last yearunder the Criminal Justice Act 2003?

David Lidington: I see no problem in principle with that. The position of my party has always been that we regard jury trial in all parts of the United Kingdom as an important liberty that we would wish to see suspended only in the most exceptional circumstances, which was why, throughout the duration of emergency powers legislation, those powers were subject to regular renewal by Parliament. We have taken issue with the Government over recent counter-terrorist legislation that proposed removing the right of trial by jury not for fear that the jury would be tampered with or subject to intimidation, but for other reasons that they gave to   justify that.

Meg Hillier: You highlighted some of the things that the Government could be doing and I was interested in your remarks about the understandable and shared concern about terrorism in Northern Ireland. Are you saying[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be careful about using the word you.

Meg Hillier: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in an ideal world, his party would prefer to see a further extension of the part VII measures for a longer period than until 2008?

David Lidington: We should extend the powers if that is   necessary to provide the protection that is needed by the people of Northern Ireland against intimidation and   violence. I endorse completely the Secretary of State's comments that defending the right of the people of Northern Ireland to live secure lives, free from threat, should be the first priority of any Government and   any   legislation. The combination of time limits, the requirement for regular parliamentary renewal of powers and the certificating-out procedure has provided flexibility in the application of these powers to particular cases. The Secretary of State said that we have seen a steady reduction in the number of cases in which it was considered necessary and appropriate to have the case tried before a judge sitting alone.
	Clearly, I want to see the day when Northern Ireland can do without any emergency powers of this nature. However, after 30 years of terrorism, during which the terrorist organisations have become so entrenched in the life of Northern Ireland, we must not jump too easily or rapidly to the conclusion that we will be able to dispense with emergency powers quickly.

Lorely Burt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lidington: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, as I would like other hon. Members, particularly those from Northern Ireland, to have the opportunity to speak.
	Lord Carlile expressed concern about delays in the processing of scheduled offences. In his last report he said that that was taking longer in 2004 than in 2000, even though there were significantly fewer such cases to be processed. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether the situation has now improved and, if not, whether the Government are considering the use of powers under sections 72 and 73 of part VII to make statutory regulations to impose time limits on those cases.
	I have a question about the private security industry. In England and Wales, the system relies on enhanced criminal records checks, which include not just information about convictions but details of police intelligence about the individuals concerned. The reason for the different approach in Northern Ireland, and as seen in the Bill, is that successive Governments have worried about the prospect of people from a paramilitary background being in receipt of evidence about police intelligence held against them, including, obviously, details of the informer who may have provided the police with that intelligence.
	Do the Government think it likely, or even possible, that in the foreseeable future we will be in a position where we could allow the disclosure of police intelligence to people being vetted for a post in the private security industry in Northern Ireland? Does not that again suggest that some type of arrangement unique to Northern Ireland will continue to be needed after 2008?
	Do we need the powers brought in after the Omagh   bombing under which the opinion of a senior police officer is admissible as evidence in respect of   membership of a specified organisation? My understanding is that, in practice, this power has never been used. As the Secretary of State knows, my party has always been uneasy about the idea of specification, whereby we have two categories of illegal terrorist organisations. In one category, specified organisations, the word of the police counts as evidence of membership. In the other category, non-specified but proscribed organisations, police evidence does not count in the same way. I hope that the Minister will say a word or two about that.
	I want to finish by touching briefly on an issue that was raised earlier in interventions: this Bill's relationship to the Government's policy on terrorists on the run. I hope, as others have expressed the hope, that we will get the opportunity to discuss the Government's proposals fairly soon, and before we have to decide on the content of such legislation, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), said in an intervention. Frankly, I find it frustrating that members of Sinn Fein have seen, so they tell me, the Government's proposals and are happy with them, but that my party and, I think, the Liberal Democrats, have not had access to the details of what the Government have in mind.

Lembit �pik: Indeed. Does the hon. Gentleman not sometimes feel that it is by being stroppy and naughty that one gets the Minister's attention? Would it not be more helpful if, at those times when various parties and supportive organisations are not kicking up, they still felt included in the process; otherwise, the Government merely store up future problems for themselves?

David Lidington: The Government should share their thoughts with Parliament in the very near future and give us ample opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Patrick Cormack: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's support. Does he agree that if ever a subject lent itself to pre-legislative scrutiny, thisif one is hoping to achieve a consensusis it?

David Lidington: I agree.
	The Government have shown good sense and proper caution in introducing this Bill today to renew part VII powers. I hope that they will show the same good sense and proper caution when they approach the question of people who are on the run from justice. But for the purposes of today's debate, we believe that this Bill is necessary and it has our support.

Tom Harris: It is more than two years since I was given the opportunity to speak on Northern Ireland matters before the House. My silence has been caused not by any reticence on my part, but by the fact that between July 2003 and May 2005 I served as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), who was Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office. I pay tribute to the excellent job that he did and to the commitment that he brought to all his ministerial posts. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). He was an excellent Secretary of State who was respected by Members in all parts of this House, and by all parties involved in Northern Ireland.
	This is a cautious Billand rightly so, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) saidand I was certainly reassured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's commitment that his priority must always be the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure that he has the whole House's support in saying that.
	This could well be an historic moment. I say that   cautiously, because historic moments in Northern Ireland history often turn out to be no more than a footnote. In this regard, I think of the great example of the Sunningdale agreement; none the less, this could prove to be such a moment. The measures contained in the Bill and in part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 have been renewed annually since the early 1970s, and today could be the very last time that we renew such powers in a debate on the Floor of the House. If so, everyone involved in Northern Ireland matters, and everyone in Northern Ireland, should celebrate. Of course, it remains to be seen whether primary legislation will have to be introduced in 2008 to enact further measures. I   share the Government's hope that that will not be necessary.
	I hope that the IRA statement of 28 July announcing the end of its armed campaign will turn out to be an historic moment rather than a footnote. I fully understand why the Unionist parties and their supporters are cynical and sceptical about such announcements, but if in 1995 the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) had foreseen that the IRA would make such an announcement, with an international body overseeing and verifying that decommissioning had taken place, I cannot believe that   his reaction would have been anything other than euphoric. Some suspicion arises from the fact that the 1998 Belfast agreement committed the IRA to decommissioning entirely by May 2000. If what has taken place over the summer and in the past month had happened in April and May 2000, a great deal of the understandable cynicism and suspicion in the Unionist community would have been prevented. We all expected and hoped that the IRA would decommission to the extent that it seems to have nowunfortunately, five years too late.

Lady Hermon: May I firmly but gently remind the hon. Gentleman that great offence was caused by the long-awaited statement on 28 July, in which the IRA claimed that its campaign was legitimate? There was no word of apology at all, which caused great offence not just across the Unionist Protestant community but among all families, whether Catholic or of no faith at all, whose relatives had been murdered by members of the IRA. There was not a word of regret, so if the hon. Gentleman thought that we would all jump up and down on 28 July we certainly did not.

Tom Harris: The hon. Lady is quite correct. She has been present in the House when I have said on more than one occasion that the decommissioning of weapons should not be regarded as a concession but as a basic minimum requirement of any party that hopes to be taken seriously in the democratic process. I agree with what she said.
	Throughout the debate, especially since 1997 to 1998, there has been an almost unspoken threat or intimidation when dealing with paramilitaries on both sides. The suggestion was that we ought to make political progress because if we did not X, Y and Z might   return to violence. I do not accept that any of the so-called concessions by the Government are based on that threat but, nevertheless, the debate on Northern Ireland has been conducted under a thinly veiled threat of a return to violence by the main paramilitaries. If that is indeed the case, it must end now. There is no longer any excuse for suggesting that political progress must be achieved at the end of a barrel. The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to the possible disbandment of the IRA, and I sympathise with his concerns. He will understand that the demand for the IRA to disband was not included in the Belfast agreement.

Nigel Dodds: Total decommissioning was not in the Belfast agreement.

Tom Harris: Decommissioning was included in the agreement, but the disbandment of the IRA was not. We would all prefer the IRA formally to disband, but I hope that that will not be used as an excuse for progress on the peace process to pause or end completely.

Nigel Dodds: This is a very important issue. Surely the   hon. Gentleman is not taking a softer line than the Minister for Justice in the Irish Republic, who is on record as saying that the IRA should and must disband. Indeed, the former leader of the SDLP has also said that it must do so. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that Sinn Fein could be in government and still allied to an organisation that is illegal under the law but has not disbanded or dismantled.

Tom Harris: I am certainly not suggesting that the IRA, with its current structure, could be maintained in a democratic Northern Ireland. I know that it has been mooted that it could become some kind of veterans' society or similar social organisation. I make no comment about whether that is a good or bad thing, but if that were the chosen option I hope that no party in Northern Ireland would prevent further progress to a more democratic, devolved Northern Ireland for that reason.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from on this point, but does he recognise that one of the major impediments to progress in Northern Ireland is Sinn Fein's failure to support the police and the rule of the law? If republicans are to be recognised as fully embracing democracy, they have to support the police and the rule of law. One cannot be in government as a law maker and not support those who are tasked with upholding the law. That is the crucial issue, because if Sinn Fein do that, what need has the IRA to exist?

Tom Harris: In making a passing comment, I feel as though I have kicked a wasps' nest. The hon. Gentleman is correct, and the priority must of course be to ensure that the nationalist community co-operates fully with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That is the minimum that should be expected and anything that   gets in the way of that and acts as a buffer between the nationalist community and the police must not be tolerated. I am on the record as saying that I hope that   the IRA disbands, but I hopeno, I demandthat whatever form it takes in the future it must not in any way interfere with the rule of law, as represented by the PSNI.

Ian Paisley: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of   the conference at Leeds castle? The DUP set out its   plan honestly and openly, but at the very time we were talking to the Governmentwe did not talk to IRA-Sinn FeinIRA-Sinn Fein negotiators were planning the bank raid. That is not what we said, but what the Minister for Justice from the Irish Republic said.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman will not catch me trying to justify or defend the appalling behaviour of Sinn Fein negotiators at Leeds castle. As he rightly says, they and their cohorts in the IRA were planning a major bank robbery as they negotiated to join a devolved Government. That is unacceptable.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I   divulge the details of a personal conversation that we had at Leeds castle. We met outside the members' cloakroom and I asked him, Ian, will you be First Minister? He replied, I don't know, I just don't know. I walked away thinking, with all due respect, that that was the most positive thing that I had heard him say during 20 years of Northern Ireland politics.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) intervened on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate and raised the genuine concern that if the provisions of part VII of the   Terrorism Act 2000 needed to be in force, the Government could not justify reinstating the allowances of Sinn Fein Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I remind the hon. Lady that throughout the whole period from 1999 when Sinn Fein Members of the   Northern Ireland Assembly were receiving their allowances, section 7 powers were in force. There is thus no contradiction in the Government's policy to give back those allowances to Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. As someone who voted to remove allowances from Sinn   Fein Members of the House, I hope to have the opportunity in the near future to vote to reinstate them as a direct result of developments over the summer.
	It is a tragedy that Members representing Sinn Fein in the House have chosen not to take their seats and so, once again, are not here to represent their constituents on a matter of crucial importance. When I last pressed a Sinn Fein Member about why they would not take up their seats, I pointed out that their ideological, ethical and moral objections to entering this place were exactly the same as those they had raised against sitting in the Dail and in the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, in both of which they now sit.

Lady Hermon: There are two points to be made, as there are two sets of allowances. The allowance to the Sinn Fein group in the Assembly was withdrawn by the   Government, quite rightly, after an ad hoc report from the Independent Monitoring Commission, which the Government introduced under legislation in the House as an independent body to monitor paramilitary activity. Last December, there was a serious bank robbery and two families were held under threat of violence. On the back of an IMC report and its recommendation to the Government, which the Government upheld, the financial penalty to Sinn Fein was to last 12 months. However, within days of the IMC report this year, and with only a month to look at IRA   activity, the Government moved to reinstate Sinn Fein's allowances. In a few weeks, the Secretary of State will recommend that Sinn Fein allowances in the House

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are getting longer and longer. I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) will have got the hon. Lady's point.

Tom Harris: I understand the hon. Lady's frustration at that development. My view, but possibly not the Government'salthough I suspect it isis that it was right to recognise the significant announcements made by the IRA over the summer. In re-establishing the allowances, the Government formally recognised that the IRA and Sinn Fein are closely linked, but that, given what happened over the summer, denying the allowances could not continue to be justified. However, I accept that the hon. Lady will disagree.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned the word capitulation in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He knows better than anyone that the words we use in Northern Ireland debates matter a great deal. I am frustrated when debates are defined by language that, whether deliberately intended to or not, causes anxiety in a particular part of the community. For instance, why must every advance be described as a concession or a surrender? Progress in Northern Ireland cannot and should not be measured by assuming that every development of the peace process can be described as a concession, a snub or a gain in a column headed Unionist or nationalist.
	I finish by paying tribute to David Trimble, who as leader of the Ulster Unionist party delivered huge progress not only for the part of the community that he represented but for the whole community in Northern Ireland. He was, with John Hume, a well-deserved recipient of the Nobel peace prize. His absence from the House takes something away from our debates. Many Labour Members, while not necessarily agreeing with everything that he said during his career in this place, understood the huge contribution he made to peace in the Province. I hope that in a year or so I will be able to stand here and make similar comments about the hon. Member for North Antrim and the contribution that he may or may not make during the next year.

Lembit �pik: I spoke during the debate on the Second Reading of the Terrorism Act 2000, and specifically about part VIII of   that Act, to which the Bill refers. At the time, I   welcomed the fact that those measures were to be in place for only five years and subject to renewal by Parliament by statutory instrument every 12 months. I   have served on every committee that debated the annual review of those sections of the Act. That review was important because Parliament had to have the ability to consider the provisions regularly and to make its own judgment of the situation in Northern Ireland and of whether those provisions remained necessary.
	In that context, it has obviously been absolutely essential to have the benefit of studying the annual reports of my noble Friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. Indeed, in my judgment his work has underpinned much of the guidance that the Government have used to make their decisions subsequently. His work has been invaluablenot just because he happens to be the former Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire. Unfortunately, given the time frame needed to place the Bill on to the statute book before the provisions run out in February, we are not able to see his deliberations on the operation of part VII of the 2000 Act in the current year, but I shall look very closely at his latest report when it is published. In that sense, it was very important that we had access to the letter that has subsequently been shared with those hon. Members who are in the Chamber today. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having made that arrangement, which has been helpful in informing the debate.
	We welcome the fact that part VII will be extended only for a very limited timeindeed, until the end of July 2007. As we have already discussed, there is provision in the Bill for the sections that are then in force to continue, but no later than 1 August 2008again, with specific parliamentary approval by statutory instrument. I understand that that can be achieved only by positive affirmation in the Commons and in another place, and I see the Minister nodding on that score. Lord Carlile welcomes that check, and I think that it is important, too, because Parliament simply must be able to look regularly and closely at whether such measures are indeed necessary in Northern Ireland.
	Of course I had hoped, as probably everyone had hoped in 2000, that we would have made sufficient progress in the long march towards peace and the   normalisation of the Province to make part VII irrelevant at some point during the five-year lifetime that was placed on it. Although some progress has been made in recent weeks particularly, there has been such turmoil in the intervening years that the provisions of part VII are evidently still necessary. Although the IRA statement in July and the subsequent decommissioning of IRA weapons were significant events, they took a long time to happen. It is five and a half years after all paramilitary activities were meant to have come to an end, and seven and a half years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. In fact, that very delay has meant that we find ourselves debating part VII again.
	We have had insufficient time to judge whether the IRA has decommissioned not just its weapons, but its activities. The signs from the latest IMC report are encouraging and I look forward to its next report in January, but I feel that the jury is still out on the long term. Until recently, similar progress has not been made in relation to loyalist violence or dissident republicans. The violence that we saw over the summer was truly horrific, and the loyalist paramilitaries demonstrated in no uncertain terms why it is necessary for part VII of the 2000 Act to remain in force.

Nigel Dodds: Constant reference is being made to violence on the loyalist side over the summerit is quite right that that should be deplored. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that there was also vicious violence on the part of republicans against the police, with the use of blast bombs and other lethal attacks over the summer period, not least at Ardoyne on 12 July. Hon. Members should bear that in mind and recognise that there has been violence on both sides.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman is completely rightto put that on record. People who live on the mainland of the United Kingdom sometimes do not recognise that an underlying level of violence continues   in republican and loyalist communities. Normalisation in the Province cannot simply be achieved by violence disappearing from news reports. Violence must disappear on the ground in the Province and true lawful behaviour must be introduced.
	The Ulster Defence Association has, however, at least   continued its talks with the Decommissioning Commission. But perhaps the most significant development took place this morning, when the Loyalist Volunteer Force announced its intention to stand down. As we have already heard, the feud between the Ulster Volunteer Force and the LVF has had a devastating effect on the loyalist community. What will matter, once again, will be the Independent Monitoring Commission report in January on whether LVF violence has indeed come to an end.
	I shall move on to the details of the Bill. I am pleased that over the past five years the Government have largely accepted the recommendations put forward in the annual reports written by my noble Friend Lord   Carlile of Berriew.
	I am especially pleased that the Government do not wish to resurrect sections 70 and 71 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which were repealed earlier this year. Those provisions allowed the Secretary of State to make directions for young persons charged with a scheduled offence to be held in adult prisons while on remand. The powers come from a time when young persons were held in remand homes. Those homes were insecure and serious problems were presented in the management of some of their remand population. Thankfully, there have been great advances in the youth justice system in Northern Ireland over recent years and Hydebank young offenders centre and the juvenile justice centre are now able to provide the security required. Those developments are welcome and the Government are right to ensure that those sections do not return to the statute book.
	Lord Carlile raised worries about section 108 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in his 2004 report on the operation of part VII of the Act. That section makes provisions on evidence that may lead a court to conclude that a section 11 offencemembership of a proscribed organisationhas been committed. Subsections (2) and (3) of section 108 render admissible under a section 11 charge hearsay evidence that would not otherwise be admissible. The evidence must be given orally by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent. If it is the opinion of that officer that the accused belongs to an organisation that is specified, the statement shall be admissible as evidence of the matter stated.
	Lord Carlile found in 2004 that section 108 had not been used. Paragraph 19.7 of his report states:
	I am totally unpersuaded by the arguments for its retention . . . Section 108 could be repealed without any measurable disadvantage to the cause of public protection from terrorism. It is a provision that lies uncomfortably in the broader context of normalisation and the Good Friday Agreement.
	However, section 108 will continue to remain in force under the Bill.

Ian Paisley: Would it not be right to underline the fact that the provision was copied from the law in the south of Ireland, where it still exists and a police officer can give such evidence in court?

Lembit �pik: If I were a parliamentary representative in the south of Ireland, I would be making exactly the   same point. The provision simply does not stand up   to scrutiny both of its practical benefit, on which Lord Carlile has commented, and of its principle of diluting the burden of proof when someone is charged with such a serious offence. How can the soon-to-be right hon. Gentleman and the Minister justify keeping the section in force when Lord Carlile of Berriew, who has been listened to in almost every other respect and has successfully advised the Government, has said that it should be repealed? As we do not have Lord Carlile's assessment of the use of the section in full during the course of the year, will the Minister tell us of any instances when it has been used in the past 12 months, because I have yet to hear that evidence?
	In February's debate to renew part VII provisions, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised concerns about section 75, which provides for non-jury trial in Northern Irelanda Diplock trial. Although it is fair to recognise Lord   Carlile's assessment that Northern Ireland judges apply rigorous standards to the quality of evidence in non-jury trials, he recommended in his last report that   the Government should consider moving from employing one judge in non-jury trials to a three-judge court. He states:
	A three judge court would command greater confidence in one part of the community, without diminishing confidence rationally elsewhere.
	As part of the normalisation process in Northern Ireland, we have to move in that direction. We would all prefer it if the circumstances allowed us to return to full jury trials in Northern Ireland, but without pre-empting what might be in my noble Friend's report in the coming   months, I suspect that we are not there yet. A three-judge court would demonstrate that we are moving towards the restoration of a normal judicial process in Northern Ireland. What discussions have taken place since February to move the situation on? Are the Government considering how we can make progress on that crucial issue?
	The Secretary of State made encouraging noises about considering the issue, at least in the broader context. Will the Minister confirm that he will give serious consideration to an amendment tabled in Committee to create a three-judge court environment? I   can see absolutely no downside for the Government in making that move forward, but a considerable improvementan upsideamong certain sectors of the   Northern Ireland community in their faith that the courts will be fairer.
	There are also ways in the 2000 Act to reintroduce parts currently repealed, in particular as set out in clause   2. That would require primary legislation. We very much agree that that is the right way forward, but what time do the Government foresee for those debates, because they must be more than merely tokenistic?
	Despite concerns about specific sections, it is important to ensure that part VII provisions remain in force for the time being. However, I shall study with the greatest interest and in detail the next IMC report and Lord Carlile's report. Once again, the more that the Government can provide as an advance indication of where they might be going, the more useful that would be.
	There is one irony that cannot go unmentioned, however. The Bill is in large part based on the historical and political experience of the Province and is thus in keeping with a mature understanding of the motivations of the terrorists, as well as the reality of terrorist acts. Let us remember the reason for the Bill. The 2000 Act tidied up and extended previous counter-terrorism legislation and put counter-terrorism laws on a permanent footing. It was intended to combat all forms of terrorism, not just terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. It provides a range of measures designed to prevent terrorism, supports the investigation of terrorist crime and extends UK-wide.
	Why have the Government failed to understand the contradiction between the judgments they make about Northern Ireland, which can lead to informed and consensual solutions, such as this Bill, and the unjoined-up approach that they take to international terrorism as a whole? Why is it that the very things that bring us together on this Bill should not have counted one jot in the many terrorist debates and Bills that have been thrown at us in recent weeks in the international context? Why is it that right hon. and hon. Members can talk rationally about these things in the Members' Tea Room and agree that there is an inconsistency between how we deal with Northern Ireland terrorism and international terrorism, and yet we are presented with a malignant, aggressive and unlistening Government when it comes to tackling terrorism in the rest of the UK?

Tom Harris: Rubbish.

Lembit �pik: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman explain why so many hon. Members in these debates feel that the Government somehow differentiate good and sane terrorists in Northern Ireland, but bad and insane terrorists from elsewhere? How can it be consistent to deal with the Northern Ireland terrorist while simply seeking to oppress the opportunities to terrorise everywhere else? I must ask why the Government are obsessed with negotiating on problems in Northern Irelandon many occasions I agree with thembut simply seek to incarcerate suspected terrorists on the mainland using some of the very worst historical methods, such as internment, perhaps only by another name?

Tom Harris: I had not intended to intervene and I shall try not to stray too much from the purpose of the debate, but the hon. Gentleman has been present at enough of these debates to understand the valid argument that, as far as republican terrorism is concerned, there was always a way to negotiate, in that they held various political views, which even if one did not agree with them, one could negotiate on; whereas with other types of terrorism, such as Islamism, there is no negotiation, since the death of innocent people is the end aim of those terrorists, and therefore there is no point in negotiating.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman's comments simply serve to underline the frustration that many of us feel about the Government's approach towards the issue: the schizophrenic assumption that the terrorists of Northern Ireland are in some way different from the terrorists from elsewhere. In essence, if what the hon.   Gentleman says is correct, we must draw the conclusion that he believes that the terrorists in Northern Ireland were in some way motivated, while the terrorists who perpetrate their international war of terror, to use the Government's own phrase, have no motive. What frustrates those of us who have sought to participate proactively in both those debates is the fact that there can be no such rational distinction. Our frustration has been compounded by the fact that on occasion the Government have sought to make unilateral deals with Sinn Fein and, indirectly, with the IRA, while those people who have been supportive of the peace process have been virtually ignored. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made that point very well, and it is a matter of great annoyance to those of us who have sought the peaceful and democratic route that those who have not been peaceful have been treated in a different way.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a prime example of this differentiation that the Government make is the anticipated legislation on on   the runs, when the Government propose to give a de facto amnesty to terrorists, some of whom have committed the most atrocious crimes in Northern Ireland, and that it is very difficult for the layman to understand how one can make that distinction, no matter how nuanced the arguments may be?

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman gives one example of many that at times serve to undermine our confidence that the Government have a joined-up understanding of the problems of terrorism. I happen to believe that terrorists are on the whole motivated, and that it is the failure of politicians to understand those motivations that causes such a disparity of behaviour in what we have seen in Northern Ireland and what we have seen elsewhere. The suffering of the Province is a record of what results from the ignorance of prejudice and the consequence when politics fails to listen to the causes. At a time when we seem at last to have learned the lessons from that lethal tragedy in one place, how depressing it is to see the very same calamity repeated in our treatment of the very same set of affairs in regard to the terrorist threat from abroad.
	As the Minister said earlier, the powers in the Bill are exceptional and time limited. In Northern Ireland it   took 30 yearssome would say hundreds of yearsfor us to find the courage to attend to the underlying   motivations of the terrorists that now lead us to time-limit regulations and legislation that is hopefully now at the tail end of the troubles that have bedevilled the Province. How many more years will it take for us and the Government to learn the same lessons for the rest of the world? Why is it so hard to see that international terrorists are motivated just as were   the republican terrorists and loyalist terrorists of yesterday?

Meg Hillier: I am very puzzled by some of the hon.   Gentleman's comments. With whom is he suggesting that the Government negotiate on international terrorism? Can he name the organisations and bodies?

Lembit �pik: Answering that in detail would take us way beyond the remit of the Bill. The hon. Lady's comments, and those of other Labour Members, are exactly the same as those that I listened to as I grew up in Northern Ireland and as I took an interest in politics in the late 80s and early 90s. She is using the same terminology as we used in the years when the Government said that the terrorists of Northern Ireland simply could not be negotiated withthat they were mindless psychopaths and barbarians. I am happy to discuss the question with her if she is asking it seriously, but we would be best advised to do so outside the Chamber.
	This Bill is helpful in the narrow context of Northern Ireland. There is every reason to expect that the moves that we make tonight to underscore the importance of consistency will be helpful, and I hope that they will be passed without a vote. If they are taken to a vote, the Liberal Democrats will support the Government.
	I still counsel the Government to look beyond what we are discussing today, however. Understanding the motives of terrorists does not make it right for them to kill people in the name of any cause, but nor does it seem right for us to ignore the lessons of history. If we ignore what happened in the early days of the troubles, we are even more likely to have to relive them.

Mark Durkan: I regret that the House has to debate this Bill. Like many Members, I want normalisation in its full and most honest sense, so that we no longer need to have all sorts of special provisions or to talk about the reality of intimidation and the residual effects of so many years of paramilitary activity. Regrettably, we are not quite there yet. However, it is clear that only a very small minority in this House would prefer not to go forward with the legislation.
	I would have preferred the Government to be bolder and to put us on a firmer path to full and proper normalisation in judicial and criminal justice processesthe same path that we have been pursuing in relation to policing. My party and I agree with the Human Rights Commission, which believes, in relation to clause 1which is essentially a rebadging of part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000that we are at a point in Northern Ireland where we should be moving away from such provisions.
	I say that not because I believe that we are free from intimidation in Northern Ireland or because I am in any way naive or relaxed about the nature of paramilitary activities and the various hangover features of paramilitary life, but because we need to take the lead as democrats instead of constantly finding ourselves coming to this House beholden to the latest concession that the paramilitaries are supposedly giving us. We spend our time praising and thanking one paramilitary group for one statement and another paramilitary group for another, and find ourselves diffident about pursuing and applying our own democratic standards. In doing so, we turn things upside down. As constitutional democrats, we often find ourselves beholden to the latest initiative from the paramilitaries. We should be setting the terms, standards and pace of normalisation.
	I recognise that, as the Secretary of State said, in many ways the Bill connects back to aspects of the joint declaration of May 2003. However, I quibble with his saying that the joint declaration was generally endorsed by all the pro-agreement parties. Although there was general endorsement of some aspects of it, some of us had specific criticisms of other aspects. Some of us never went along with the pretence about having three annexes and two other documents that happened to coincide with themone about on-the-runs and the other about sanctions that would be attached to the   Independent Monitoring Commission. We never went along with the pretence that those documents were not annexes. In all the talks before, during and since the Hillsborough talks on the joint declaration, including the talks in Leeds castle to which the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has referred, we consistently pointed out to both Governments that they were turning a blind eye to the reality of continuing criminality.
	In recent interviews, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) has acknowledged that the Social Democratic and Labour party was the one party consistently to raise concerns about criminality in his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That record of consistency on paramilitary and criminal activity is the background to our preference for not moving forward with this Bill.
	As we have seen in the case of the McCartney murder, the intimidation that gets in the way of justice in Northern Ireland involves the destruction of evidence and syndicated silence from witnesses. Some people make a big deal about calling on others to go to the police or the police ombudsman with statements, but such statements say little and many are not signed. The real issue in Northern Ireland with the administration of justice is not the difference between a Diplock court and a jury court but whether the evidence exists to take cases forward and whether people engage in conspiracies to deny, destroy and prevent evidence.
	In recent times, a number of cases have been taken to court after undoubtedly good work by the police service and after many brave people in the community have given information to the police. In some cases, people have been prepared to give evidence in court, only to find that the judge takes a much more relaxed and detached view of the crime in question than do the public.
	Juries should have been used in some recent cases, particularly those involving a number of loyalists who were charged with not only attacks on members of the nationalist community, but preying on their own community and businesses. Even after those people were convicted, the judge gave them suspended sentences, and they walked free. I am not talking about people who had committed a first offence or minor offences. I find it hard to tell people from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland who were offended and outraged by those decisions that we should maintain Diplock courts. People feel suspicious and iffy about some recent judicial outcomes, and about the concession-of-the-week mode in which we sometimes appear to be operating.

Lady Hermon: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the difficulty lies with the judiciary or with the lack of evidence? He is making serious allegations that may undermine people's confidence in the judiciary.

Mark Durkan: First, I have discussed the problems associated with gathering evidence, of which the McCartney case is an example. Secondly, I have written to the Lord Chancellor about a number of cases involving suspended sentences that shocked people from not only my party, but across the community, given the nature of the crimes and the criminal history of the people involved. We cannot debate the question of Diplock courts versus jury trial without taking account of that unfortunate reality. I do not know whose fault it is; all I know is that many people, especially victims of crime and the police, witnesses and other members of the community who put their efforts into dealing with such cases, are at a loss to understand why it happened.
	As long as we retain abnormal arrangements such as those in the Bill, there will always be people who use them as an excuse to question the legitimacy of the justice system, and to withhold co-operation with the   police and due recognition of the administration of justice. Such people will grasp any excuse. Some parties are still not committed to the policing arrangements that resulted from the Good Friday agreement, and are still not signing up to Patten. I believe that for years Sinn Fein has withheld support for the policing arrangements not because it cannot identify enough with Patten, but because it still identifies too much with the P. O'Neill issue and all that went with it.
	I agree with the Secretary of State about the significance of the IRA's statement in July. I agree with the Secretary of State and others about the significance of what has been reported by General de Chastelain and his colleagues, and indeed by witnesses. However, the Government must be clear about the need for all parties to engage in political life and democratic responsibility on the same terms as anyone else.
	As a democrat with fundamental doubts about provisions such as those in the Bill, I resent having to be part of this process, given that others are allowed to withhold their support from the policing arrangements and given a privileged position for negotiation with the Government on that basis.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: They can all take their seats here.

Mark Durkan: That is another matter. It is their choice.
	Discussions are in progress involving Sinn Feinperhaps along with othersand the Government, on issues such as community restorative justice. I know that the Minister sought to give some assurances about that last week, but what is the reality? A constituent of mine told me recently, A man from CRJ came to my   house, but when he said who he was, it brought three other initials to mind, and only the middle onethe Rwas the same. She was very clear about that.   Another constituent was apparently approached by someone supposedly representing community restorative justice and told, If you go to the police about this, you may have to leave the country.
	The Government are laying down provisions relating to abnormal arrangements in the courts, supposedly to deal with intimidation but they appear ready to license and engage with the very people who are behind intimidation connected with criminal activity, which is about creating an ulterior policing arrangement outside the formal and proper policing structures.

Gregory Campbell: I   share many of the hon. Gentleman's reservations about community restorative justice. Can he not see the logic in suggesting, as we proceed through 2005 and into 2006, that caution should be the watchword whenever paramilitary groupsall paramilitary groupsare being dealt with?

Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We need to be cautious at all timesbut cautious in ways that also make us judicious about our choices. If we are to accept in full the positive developments, such as what the IRA has done, possibly the Loyalist Volunteer Force statement and, hopefully, similar action by other loyalist paramilitaries, we should move towards normal standards as far and as quickly as possible, and not allow anybody to exploit lingering abnormality. I am especially concerned about that in the context of people prolonging the progress that they need to make on policing. The longer they prolong that, the longer others might delay progress on politics and political institutions.
	Although I have reservations about the content and detail of the BillI have never liked the Diplock courtsI acknowledge that it is part of the suite that comes with the joint declaration, which was made in 2003. If completion had occurred in spring 2003, the joint declaration gave a deadline of approximately two years for phasing out special provisions and terrorism legislation in Northern Ireland. Now the IRA is moving towards completion in 2005 and the two-year time scale that accompanies the suite of measures that was promised in the joint declaration applies. I do not question the Government's record on that. However, if the Government are sticking so literally to the letter of the joint declaration on that matter, will they pay attention to other aspects? Will they fulfil in full all the other promises and commitments that were made?
	One of the commitments in the joint declaration was that consideration would be given to a forum for victims and survivors. The Government have moved on the appointment of a victims commissioner. I have serious problems about the way in which they went about that. I have criticised the fact that the Government negotiate uniquely with Sinn Fein on community restorative justice and some other matters, but they negotiated similarly exclusively with the Democratic Unionist party about the appointment of a victims commissioner. That is not the way to build the confidence of the community at large in balanced and well-rounded progress. I have no objection to the woman who has been appointed as victims commissioner, but I remind the Government that a proposal stands in the joint declaration for a forum for victims and survivors. That could give comfort to all victims and survivors and, indeed, the whole community. It could work well with the new office of a victims commissioner and I am sure that the victims commissioner would work well with such a forum.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman can hardly blame Unionists for seeking to extract from the Government movement on key issues such as the victims commissioner. He will understand how we have felt for years when we stood on the sidelines and watched his party go not to the British Government but the Irish Government and, through them, extract concession after concession to fulfil their political agenda. We therefore take with a pinch of salt his comments about the victims commissioner. Everyone is at it in Northern Ireland, so why should not the Unionists?

Mark Durkan: Not everyone in Northern Ireland is at it. Some of us have said all along that the process should always be undertaken inclusively and that, as far as possible, all parties should hear the same thing at the same time in the same terms. That would reduce an awful lot of resentment and suspicion. The hon. Gentleman gave the game away, because he said that he is now happy to play the politics of concession of the week. The DUP is happy to claim its concession of the   victims commissioner from last week, so we do handstands about that, but there will be head staggers next week when the on-the-runs legislation appears. That is no way to run a peace process or build confidence.

Nigel Dodds: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's references to inclusivity. He claims that everyone should   hear the same thing at the same time. Yet when   President Bush visited Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman and his party colleagues argued vociferously that the only party to be excluded from the talks should be the DUP, even though we represented the majority of Unionism. He supported and argued for that. Why, therefore, does he argue for inclusivity today?

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: I   supported no such thing. The American consulate and others will confirm what my advice was. My first advice was that President Bush would be better off not coming and that we would be better off if he did not come. President Bush was fair enough to acknowledge that that advice was honest and straight. My advice was also that every party should be invited to see him. I did not see why the Democratic Unionist party should be given the dubious privilege of not having to make a decision at such an uncomfortable time

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we get too involved in this matter, may we perhaps return to the Bill? That would be helpful to good order.

Mark Durkan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	At the heart of the Bill is the integrity and reliability of the operation of a system of justice in Northern Ireland. That is why several provisions that will come on stream soon, including community restorative justice, are pertinent to this debate, and why other hon. Members have also referred to them. We want progress to be made, and I welcome what the LVF has said. I join other hon. Members in acknowledging the good work, the hard work, and the difficult and dark work, of the   people who have helped to bring that decision about. I hope that it will be brought to a full, proper and positive conclusion and that a similar conclusion can be reached by other loyalist paramilitaries.
	Just as we welcome the LVF's statement today, and just as the Secretary of State welcomed Gerry Adams's comment at the weekend that the war was over, it can often ring hollow for the victims when politicians describe occasions such as these as seismic or historic. Those words are easy, but the victims' wounds are still very sore. A sense of futility stabs them when they hear people saying, after all this time, that the war is over, and when they see the terms under which those people have settled. Those terms have been available for some time. The Sunningdale agreement was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), and today's terms were available in that context in the early 1970s. People will ask why this is happening.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North spoke earlier about there being violence on both sides. I ask the Government and all hon. Members to bear it in mind that many people in Northern Ireland do not regard themselves as having been party to any form of violence. Many people, not just victims, are very clear that there was no violence committed by their side. I do not regard the Provisional IRA as being on my side any more than many Unionists regard loyalist paramilitaries such as the LVF, the Ulster Volunteer Force or the Ulster Defence Association as being on their side.
	Thankfully, there are many young people in Northern Ireland who did not live through the horrors of the troubles and who, as part of the ceasefire generation, did not grow up on a daily diet of atrocities, bombings and shootings. However, there is a danger that, because of the way in which we bandy some of this language about, we shall end up creating a false impression that the troubles were somehow a necessary and inevitable prelude to the peace process, and that there was something legitimate about the violence used by republicans, loyalists or anyone else. I ask the Government to take care in the language that they use, and in the way in which they express their welcomes and offer assumptions about progress. They must remember that there are deeper values and deeper hurts involved as well.
	We want to travel forward on the basis of hope, rather than fear. I have heard what other hon. Members have said about the need for caution, and no party has been more cautious than we have about these issues. However, I believe that the Government should show far more caution in regard to some of the choices that they are about to make regarding other aspects of justice, such as community restorative justice. They should also show more discretion and caution in relation to what they are doing with policing. The policing arrangements are the one element of the   agreement that has worked and I hope that the Government will not adopt the position that it will be okay to bacon-slice Patten at either end as long as that is balanced, and that what will be left in the middle will still be the core of Pattenit will not be.

Ian Paisley: The Bill introduced to the House stands in stark contrast to what the Government have been saying to us about Northern Ireland. They have been telling us that things are good, that there is progress, and that we are almost in paradise. In fact, we are almost in perdition.
	We feel very hurt about what is happening in Northern Ireland, especially in relation to the victims. We have heard many references to the victims, but the easing of their pain and the alleviation of their state has   been very slow. I am not saying that that is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as he has come lately to the position.
	I regret that there are those in Northern Ireland who think that when the Government make a nomination, it must be a nomination favouring republicanism and a united Ireland. That must cease. The people who are given jobs should be given them not on the basis of their religion but on the basis of their honour, integrity and ability. We stand to that.
	I feel very sore about the fact that someone who thinks as I do politically is not allowed to put forward their view. I heard Brid Rodgers, a prominent member   of the party of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and a candidate in the elections for his party, say this morning that she could not believe what the Loyalist Volunteer Force had said, and that she therefore had to put a question mark beside that statement. She is entitled to say that she does not believe it, and to put down the question mark, but the thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Protestants who say that we do not believe that the IRA will do what they say are also entitled to say just that. We are condemned out of hand, however, because we put down a question mark, but we need to do that. The House would be deluding itself if it did not know about the rejoicing on the republican side at having pulled the wool over the eyes of the Government once again.
	I sat in Leeds castle and told the people that I did not like what was happening. I said that I had to swallow hard and convince my supporters of what I was advocating. I was perfectly honest and straightforward. I did not talk to the IRA, and I do not intend to talk to those engaged in violence, whether they come from the IRA side or the loyalist side.
	The various people in Northern Ireland have a right to state their convictions, and to say, I am not convinced. The Secretary of State tells us that the arsenal of the IRA has been done away with, but the   only arsenal that has been done away with is the arsenal that was seen by the people who attended the   decommissioning. He has no proof, however, that the IRA does not have 10 other arsenals. He had better keep that in his mind. I remember that when we met the two clergymen, the priest said to us, We could only see old arms. We didn't see arms of a modern nature. I think that the IRA has the best possible arms, that it has arms of a modern nature, but that they were not there. The priest also explained to us that the trigger mechanisms of those bombs, which is the all important part, were all screwed off. They were not there. They were all missing. Are they going to be used for some future bombing? Those are the questions that everyone in their right mind is entitled to ask. They are entitled to demand an explanation.

Tom Harris: I worry that the hon. Gentleman's argument means that we will never be able to say that the IRA has completely decommissioned, because what he is asking for is proof that weapons that no one knows anything about have been destroyed. It is like trying to prove that UFOs or the Loch Ness monster do not existit is a very difficult proposition. Surely, to follow his argument, we will never get to a stage where he or his party will be able to trust the claims of the republican movement.

Ian Paisley: When the violence has ceased, everyone in Northern Ireland will know that it has ceased. Some of us have lived through it. Some of us have attended funeral after funeral. I have laid my hands   many times on a little curly-headed boy or a little curly-headed girl while they were standing at the coffin of their father who had been shot. His only crime was that he wore the uniform of the Crown. That has gone deep into the roots of the people. Standing in the House, which is the birthplace of democracy for the whole world, I surely have a right to say that the deep feeling of those people must be considered and that they must be able to reach a point where they know that they can walk out at night and all is well. When that comes, it will be over, but it is only when the IRA and all the others, whether they call themselves loyalists or whatever, are brought to obey the law that that will happen. That is what needs to happen.

Peter Robinson: If, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) says, it will never be possible for us to be absolutely certain that the IRA has decommissioned all its weaponry and that, therefore, we are left with having to make a working assumption at some stage, does not that make it all the more necessary that we tighten the requirement in relation to paramilitary activity and criminal activity to be absolutely certain over a longer period, because the IRA has bowled short in terms of the transparency that was required on decommissioning?

Ian Paisley: Of course it does. I have said to the Government, as I am sure the Secretary of State will remember, You gave the IRA over five years to do what they were supposed to do and now you want to give me five minutes and next you want to give me five weeks. Why is that? When I talk about the majority population, I am talking about the majority of both Protestants and Roman Catholics. Remember that the IRA shot some of what it would call its own people, it buried them and its own people do not even know to this day where it buried them.
	Let us look at this as it is. This is a hideous thing that we must face up to. All of us who represent Northern Ireland have a serious responsibility to put forward in the House what the ordinary man in the street is thinking and feeling. I trust that we will get a feel of that in our own hearts and consciences. At a time when the Government are making arrangements to disband the   home battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment and to dismantle the security installations in Northern Ireland, and all done according to a political timetable rather than a security timetable, it is obvious that we need to point out the true level of the threat that is upon our Province at the present time. The very fact that there is a need to introduce the Bill is the clearest possible evidence that Northern Ireland still needs special anti-terrorist measures.
	I have voted against some of the things in the Bill in bygone days in this House because I felt that if the Government had used the forces of the Crown in every possible way, they could have nipped the rebellion that was coming in the bud. However, they did not. I voted in this House against the Diplock courts. The hon.   Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has gone now, but it was her party who advocated and plead for them. Mr. Faulkner and others said that we must have them, but if the forces of law and order had been used properly, we could have stopped the rebellion. But it was not stopped; it was encouraged. Blind eyes were turned by Ministers to what was happening.
	I remember being called out by the Army night after night to go to vast crowds of people all over our city to plead with them to go home and not engage in any act of violence, for that would bring them nowhere. I did that night after night until my heart was broken to see people so frustrated, people who had dead bodies at home as a result of IRA and other activity. I knew that my country, my country that I love, was going into darkness. We have been in darkness.
	Are we going to bring it out of darkness? We will not except that we are strong; the Government and all of us must be strong and face up to the situation. We are not asking for tough, partisan measures. We are asking that everyone be equal, and be treated equally, under the law. There is no other way to run a country in peace but that.
	There needs to be an end to all paramilitary organisations. Their activities must all cease; none can be justified, whether the groups call themselves loyalists or republicans. The law-abiding people of Ulster, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, are determined no longer to tolerate terrorists. We can no longer have peace with terrorism. It will have to be dealt with.
	Over the coming months, we will be paying attention to the activities of the IRA. But even in circumstances where the IRA is effectively out of the picture, there remains a significant threat from other groups. The police tell me that dissident republicans are trouble and that loyalist paramilitaries have had their troubles; some of those groups seem intent to carry on.
	The Bill extends the provisions of part VII to 31 July 2007 and makes provision to extend those powers by order by another year. However, the Government tell me that things are moving well and that I and my people ought to move, too. But why are the Government saying that they will wait until 2008 before finalise things? They are giving themselves plenty of time and they gave the IRA plenty of time. They are not giving the ordinary man in the street who wants peace time to consider what is happening. That is who I am pleading for. If everyone else needs time, we need time also to consider what is happening.
	No one wants special powers. We want our country to be free, but if we have to sacrifice some of our liberties in order that all might share liberty, we will have to make that sacrifice whether we like it or not. The anti-terrorist powers that are available to the police and the courts cannot merely fade away to a point where they are not needed or not used before they can be removed from the statute book. It is better that provisions be allowed to   wither on the vine rather than being removed prematurely.
	As early as 2002, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission argued for the repeal of part VII of the   2000 Act. That tells us how the Human Rights Commission was constructednot one representative put forward the view of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. Of course it was a rigged body and it brought in a rigged resolution. If the types of offences covered by that legislation are not committed, the relevant provisions are not triggered, so there is no harm done by keeping them on the books. If, in a number of years from now, it is generally accepted that Ulster is at peace, there will be no voices louder than ours calling for all these laws be scrapped and buried for ever. We want to live in the freedom that we deserve.
	All that has happened in the past few days points to the fact that, as one of my colleagues said, if ever we needed caution, we need it today. It is because of that that I will be voting to support the Bill and to keep these laws on the statute book, for they promise freedom to all of our people and not just to some.

Patrick Cormack: I   congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) on his forthcoming elevation to the Privy Council. He speaks with power and passion. I remember his maiden speech. He and I came to the House on the same day, and I sat on the Government Benches and listened to him. He will forgive me if I say that he has mellowed in some respects, but in others the power of the oratory is still there, as is his burning love for the Province.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who has recently joined our ranks in this House, comes from an honourable tradition and from a party that has played a brave part in striving for normality in Northern Ireland. The one thing that all of us in this House want more than anything is normality in Northern Ireland. The thing I   want to see on a forthcoming visit to Belfast is streets that are not divided by barriers, closed by gates and riven on both sides by hatred and bigotry.
	All of us in the House today will support the Bill. I   doubt very much that there will be a Division; I hope that there will not be. But the Secretary of State must listen to voices not to mine, to the voices from Foyle and North Antrim, both of which have urged a degree of caution. In politics, perception is very important and   I know from recent visits to the Province that the   perception is that the Government have not been even-handed.
	I do not accuse the Secretary of State, whom I   genuinely wish well. However, there is a perception in the Protestant community, although it is shared by many in the Catholic community, that Sinn Fein has been given a degree of preference that it does not deserve.
	I sat down with Sinn Fein four weeks ago. It was an experience that I will not easily forget, although I dare say that I shall have to repeat it. We are dealing with people of single-minded determination who are not prepared fully to take part in the democratic process. I   said to those people that they have five seats in Parliament and that they could come here and argue their cause. They are entitled to a position on the Select Committee that I have the honour to chair. I said that they could come here and question peoplethe Secretary of State and othersand that if they truly believe in democracy, it is not only their role but their duty to participate. What sort of answer did I get? I got a clinically cold, utterly unflinching answer of absolute refusal. I will continue to make this point in this House and elsewhere, and I shall certainly make it when I meet those people again, but I will remain fundamentally opposed to their having any rights and privileges in this place until they become properly a part of it and play their part in its debates and in my Committee's discussions.
	I know that the Secretary of State agrees, because he said so in the House last week, that if those people want to play their part in creating the basis for normality in Northern Ireland, let them express one little bit of regret and remorse for the appalling misery that the IRA has inflicted on the Province in the past 35 years and more. We saw no expression of regret or remorse when the statement was issued on 28 July. We saw no expression of regret or remorse when arms were decommissioned. I   have no doubt that a large number of arms were decommissioned, but I equally have no doubt that the IRA has the scope, facilities and ill-gotten gains to replace them if it chooses to do so. That is why it is so right to pass this Bill tonight. I point out to the Secretary of State that in continuing to be cautious in our legal system, we must also be cautious in the way we regard the protestations of people who have blood on their hands.
	If, in future, those people can truly renounce evil and criminality, we will of course have to sit down with them and work with them, but they will have to make a move as well. The situation beggars belief. Is there any other part of the United Kingdom in which a legitimate party funded by the proceeds of crime would be allowed to strut its way on the stage? Yes, it is right to welcome what was said on 28 July and to acknowledge that some decommissioning has taken place, but until those people have fully and absolutely renounced evil in all its forms, they cannot be treated in the same way that the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party areor should betreated by the Government. Those parties may have differences and we may have our differences with themthey may even differ among themselves from time to timebut they all accept the validity of this place and of the democratic process, and they all play a part in it. Those other people do not.
	Let us be hard-headed about this. There has indeed been a certain renunciation of the more blatant acts of terrorism and murder. Why? One reason is that 9/11 made terrorism utterly unacceptable in the United States of America. From the moment that those planes   flew into the twin towers, IRA-Sinn Feinor Sinn Fein-IRA; put it which way one likesrealised that they would have to change their outward tune to a large degree. We welcome that, but they have not renounced their organisation's command structure or their deep involvement in criminality.
	Two weeks ago, my Select Committee was in Belfast and we received a briefing from the police, the Revenue and the Assets Recovery AgencyI do not propose to give the House the details, because that would be wrongthat would, in the immortal words of the famous Dickens character, make your flesh creep. There is no doubt that criminality is deeply ingrained in Northern Ireland, and on not just the republican side but the so-called loyalist side. I hate calling those people loyalists; I am a loyalist. Criminality has to be rooted outof both sides. If it is not and those people play a part in the democratic process without renouncing it, that process, of which we are all a part, will be devalued. We must face up to that point.
	We have a duty, particularly those of us who represent other parts of the United Kingdom, to ensure that we all uphold and sustain the progress to normality in Northern Ireland, but such progress cannot be made at any price. The price that has to be paid by those who are giving up their arms is a full renunciation of evil, wickedness and crime. They have to be willing to sit down and to play a proper part in the democratic process. That is why we have to be very careful about any legislation that we introduce.
	The Secretary of State mildly rebuked me when I   intervened on him earlier, to quiz him on the business of the on-the-runs legislation. However, there is a fundamental contradiction in the Government's thinking. Today, they are rightly bringing this Bill before the House and asking for support from all parts of it. They are receiving such support, but in one, two or three weeks' time, the Secretary of State will introduce a Billwe do not know precisely when, but he said that it will be before Christmasthat will give an amnesty in all but name to some of the wickedest people in the United Kingdom.
	I point out to the Secretary of State that if he wants to build normality and to take the House with himI want to go with himthe House has its instruments. Let him bring that measure to us for pre-legislative scrutiny, so that we can look at what is proposed. Witnesses could be called; indeed, I have offered that my Committee do the job for him, if he wishes. It includes representatives of the three Northern Ireland parties: two from the   DUP; the hon. Member for North Down (Lady   Hermon), from the UUP, and the deputy leader of the SDLP. It also includes seven Government Members, all of whom have knowledge and deep commitment. I am absolutely determined that this Committee will never work on a party political basis, and that it will work together for the good of Northern Ireland.
	Let us look at that measure, have witnesses and ask   them questions about it, so that if it is passed, it is truly even-handed. If forgiveness has to be officially sanctioned, let it be sanctioned across the board. If we are to put the past behind us in order to build a proper, secure future, that is the only way to proceed. A nation that neglects its past does not really deserve a future. We would all like to forget much of the past in Northern Ireland, but we must be stimulated by memories of evil to create a climate of good. We must all be prepared to forgive and forget, but only if, as the soon-to-be right hon. Member for North Antrim said, everyone is treated equally.
	I appeal to the Secretary of State to reconsider the forthcoming legislation while accepting the support that he deserves for the Bill. I wish him well. If he earns a reputation as a man who brought the foundation of true peace and normality to Northern Ireland he will deserve a place in the history books, and we can all honour him accordingly. Let caution be his watchword. Do not let him rush, and let him have regard for the deep feelings, the bitter memories, the twisted lives on both sides of the community and the manipulative people who would perpetuate evil. They may have renounced the bullet and the bomb, but they will intimidate with the emotional weapons of terror if we do not give a proper lead.

Christopher Fraser: I rise to speak after some first-class contributions by people who know far more about this subject than I do. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), my colleague on the Select Committee, has articulated the way forward given the issues facing us in Northern Ireland.
	For the past 30 years, the situation in Northern Ireland has rightly evoked strong emotions among all the parties involved, but we have now reached an important turning point, and we should do all that we can to encourage the process to achieve a peaceful resolution. Over the past decade, the threat of terrorism has greatly diminished. I, too, welcome the IRA statement of July and the report by the Independent Monitoring Commission in October that showed that   progress had been made. A permanent and irreversible shift away from violence by paramilitary organisations is the only way in which we can create the enabling environment needed for sustainable peace. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr.   Lidington) said, the IRA must cease to engage in all forms of organised crime and other criminal activity. It must also accept the legitimacy of the police and the criminal justice systems in the north and the south, and encourage full co-operation with them.
	The measures in the Bill, while enforcing the provisions of part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000, pave the way for normalisation, as many right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out. However, we must not allow that process to begin while paramilitary groups such as the IRA maintain a blatant disrespect for law   and order. It is important that we do not rush into the process without careful consideration of the consequences should the IRA go back on its word. Decisions such as dismantling security installations and watchtowers, dismantling the service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment and reducing the permanent garrison in the Province by half to 5,000 should be reviewed after a period of time. The IMC concluded that
	clearly we are looking for cumulative indications of changes in behaviour over a more sustained period of time.
	Can the Secretary of State tell us what a sustained period of time is? We must take into account the fact that the troubles in Northern Ireland have been going on for over 30 years. As much as we want to accelerate the peace process, perhaps we should adopt a patient approach.
	It is important to address the issue of loyalist paramilitaries. Much has been made of IRA decommissioning and yet, as the IMC confirmed, the threat from loyalist paramilitary organisations remains serious. If we can take anything from the events of   recent years it is that we cannot be complacent about   any threat of terrorism from any quarter. Like   many others, I watched with disgust the recent violence and   disruption on the streets of Belfast following the re-routing of a contentious Orange Order march. It was not, as one would presume, violence instigated by republican organisations. Instead, loyalist paramilitaries attacked our country's police and Army. That is not to be tolerated, especially as it is perpetrated by people who claim to be loyal to the United Kingdom. Loyalist organisations are responsible for more violent attacks than republican organisations, and over the past six months the margin of difference has grown even wider. I call upon the Government urgently to address the current Unionist disaffection with the process. It is imperative that everyone is included and works together.
	I am gravely concerned about the fact that there has been little constructive discussion of the process beyond the two-year normalisation period. I hope that the Secretary of State has taken on board hon. Members' concerns about the transition from Diplock courts to trial by jury, and that he will consider that carefully. A clear timetable of action communicated to the parties involved would ensure that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
	It cannot be denied that the Bill is an essential part of the final enabling environment, and I support its measures. It would be irresponsible to allow the provisions in part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 to lapse without sufficient safeguards in their place and the Bill will continue to make such provision. The additional powers for the Attorney General of Northern Ireland are important in helping us to distinguish between offences under criminal law and offences under terrorism laws, which may prove significant in measuring the success of the IRA statement.
	Finally, will the Secretary of State consider carefully the points that we have made this evening? I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will show their support for the Bill and for any sensible measures that will finally allow the people of Northern Ireland to live in a country that is no longer threatened by terrorism or violence.

Nigel Dodds: May I begin by referring to terrorist and paramilitary developments in Northern Ireland in recent days, following statements by a number of churchmen and others about the loyalist feud and by the Loyalist Volunteer Force about its position? As hon. Members have said, those statements have been welcomed, not least in my north Belfast constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends, which have borne the brunt of a vicious campaign both over the summer and previously. Internecine violence has not just inflicted pain, injury, hurt and death on the individuals concerned, but has caused widespread community dislocation and the removal of families from homes and society. Progress to end such violence with statements from paramilitary organisations such as the one by the LVF at the weekend is therefore welcome.
	I want to put on record my gratitude to everyone involved in that difficult and challenging behind-the-scenes work. Just as we have made it clear in relation to the IRA that action is what counts, not words, so it is in relation to the LVF and the loyalist paramilitaries. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to Brid Rodgers from Upper Bann, who said that people had many concerns about the LVF statement. Unionists have expressed the same concerns and doubts about IRA statements on behalf of the people whom we represent, but we are often castigated and derided for doing so. We have been told that we should take the IRA at its word, but the former Member for Upper Bann, Mr. David Trimble, took the IRA at its wordhe was urged by both sides of the House to do soand we know where that got us. Three times IRA-Sinn Fein were admitted into government, but on each occasion they exposed their true nature.
	We hope that the LVF means what it says. We do not equivocate about loyalist paramilitaries: we want to see them disband and disappear in the same way as republican paramilitaries should disband and disappear. People in all our communities should be   allowed to get on with their lives without paramilitarism's coercive effects. We have seen the dreadful effects of paramilitarism in the areas that we represent.
	We will support the Government in terms of the Bill, because it is a sensible approach. Unfortunately, we cannot often say that about the Government's approach to issues affecting Northern Ireland, especially in the past few months. The watchword for this debate is caution, and several hon. Members have stressed the importance of caution as we move forward, especially in relation to the criminal justice system. They have rightly stressed the need to be very careful before we remove from the statute book important legislative provisions to combat terrorism.
	In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that it was vital to have a prudent safety mechanism in place, that we needed a measured approach and that we must not take chances with the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland. Those are indeed correct sentiments to express when dealing with important issues affecting the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will not press the matter to a Division. He indicated reservations about the Bill, but I do not know whether he intends to try to divide the House. I noted what he said about sentencing and the concerns about some of the sentences handed down by judges. I have to say that similar concerns have been expressed about several cases in which people have felt that their families have not received the justice that they should have   received, because offenders have not received appropriate sentences. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it does not matter whether sentence is passed by a Diplock court or a non-Diplock court, because sentencing is entirely a matter for the judge in either case. Whether a jury is involved in the determination of guilt or not, the issue of sentencing is for the judge only. The argument on sentencing does not therefore rule out support for the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the concern that evidence was prevented from coming before the courts, be they Diplock or non-Diplock, and he mentioned the   murder of Robert McCartney. We have seen the campaign on that case, which has resulted in the   McCartney relatives having to leave the Short Strand area withoutI am sad to sayany real prospect of justice being done. That sort of conspiracy, which is sometimes covert and sometimes much more overt, is one of the reasons why it is still important to have the Diplock court mechanism in place. The sort of people who have carried out the campaign against the McCartney family could easily mount a similar campaign against potential jurors. That should cause hon. Members to support the Bill tonight, not to oppose it.
	The requirement for caution to be our watchword stands in direct contrast to the headlong rush by the Government on other matters. How can it be right to say that we cannot take risks with the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland when the Government have rushed to degrade the security along the land frontier between Northern Ireland and the Irish republic, despite the continuing menace and threat from mainstream and dissident republicans? How can it be right to decide to disband the home battalions of the   Royal Irish regiment? I might point out that the members of that battalion heard the news through the   news media, instead of being told in an appropriate and proper fashion. How can it be right to proceed with legislation to provide what is in effect an amnesty for people guilty of some of the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland? Some of that has been done purely on the basis of IRA words, not actions, and despite the fact that the Government told us that they would judge the IRA's statement over time, in terms of its actions and not its words. The Government's actions stand in stark contrast to the pledge given to the people of Northern Ireland.
	Let us consider the Government's actions in relation to Sean Kelly, a child murderer and a mass murderer who belongs to the Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein movement. When he was first arrested, we were told by the Secretary of State that it was vital that he should be arrested, because of his involvement in terrorism and the danger that he posed to the community at large. Sean Kelly was released on the eve of the IRA statement at the end of July, purely because the Government were told by the IRA-Sinn Fein leadership that it was vital to the IRA making its statement. Such an approach to the people of Northern Ireland by the Government has bred deep cynicism and a total lack of confidence in their willingness to stand by their pledges, to do the proper thing, and to judge the IRA by its actions, not its words.
	The way in which the Government have behaved has contributed significantly to the lack of confidence in the unionist community and the feeling of one-sidedness to   which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir   Patrick Cormack) referred. It is intolerable that the Government should rush headlong to make concessions to IRA-Sinn Fein at a time when it is far from being proved that the IRA is committed, permanently and irreversibly, to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) asked earlier why unionists talk about concessions, but what else are we to call the blatant release of a mass murderer on to the streets so that the IRA would make its statement the next day? How else can the people we represent see it but as a concession to Sinn Fein-IRA? Sadly, there has been too much of that in recent days.
	It is right to be cautious. The IMC has made it clear that criminality continues on the part of both the IRA and loyalists; there is no indication that it has been brought to an end. It is deeply ingrained in those organisations. An assistant chief constable of the PSNI told me only the other day that criminality was institutionalised in each paramilitary organisation. It is madness to suggest that within a few months Unionists should be asked simply to turn a blind eye to all that.
	In a debate last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out that the retention of illegally gotten criminal assets and gains from bank robberies and other activities is still a criminal offence and the Minister responding to the debate agreed. There can be no suggestion that everything that happened should be put into the past and that we should turn a blind eye and move forward as if all those things had no impact on people's confidence and their view of the reality of the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unrealistic to think that if organisations, whether the IRA or other paramilitary bodies, remain in being, they will remove themselves from some paramilitary and a lot of criminal activity? The only way for the community to be absolutely certain that it is all over is for those organisations not simply to stand down but to disband.

Nigel Dodds: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who makes an extremely important point, which was the subject of some exchanges earlier when the hon. Member for Glasgow, South was speaking. He said that we should not get hung up on the issue of disbandment, but some of us made the point that both the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the Irish Republic and the former leader of the SDLP, John Hume, were seeking disbandment and the dismantling of the criminal structures of the IRA. It is right and proper that that should happen. There has never been any justification for the retention of terrorist structures, so what possible justification can there be for the retention of terrorist structures and for the retention of the IRA as an organisation if, as we are told by Gerry Adams and his friends, the war is over and Unionists have nothing to worry about? That is not a small matter; it is not a matter of semantics. My hon. Friend is right to point out that it is important, so in January and in the weeks and months thereafter, Unionists in Northern Ireland, and indeed the entire community in Northern Irelandnot just Unionistsmust make that clear.
	Many people from the Roman Catholic and nationalist traditions come to my constituency advice centres in Belfast, North and say to me, For goodness' sake, don't let these people who have murdered and tortured us for years and who have been parasites on our communities get away with it. They are transforming themselves from overt terrorists and calling themselves by another name so that they can enforce justice in our community. For that reason, I entirely agree with the approach taken by the hon. Member for Foyle in his comments on community restorative justice.
	There is deep concern throughout communities in Belfast, North and other parts of Belfast, and indeed throughout the entire Province, about the notion that although terrorists may not get their hands on the levers of power through Sinn Fein Members becoming Ministers or joint Ministers at Stormont, they may be able to get their hands on the levers of policing and justice locally through community restorative justice programmes and projects. Certainly in republican areas such programmes are being seen as, used as and advertised as an alternative to the normal, regular policing system. There is deep concern, and the Minister must realise that it will cause enormous anger and anguish if there is any suggestion that there would be funding or official sanction or approval for those community restorative justice programmes if they do not fully operate within the normal policing and criminal justice structures, with full co-operation with the police and referrals by statutory agencies and the police, as happens in other civilised countries. To suggest that the sort of programmes that Sinn Fein-IRA are running could be legitimised would cause enormous offence, and would be rejected by the decent people of Northern Ireland, just as the obnoxious proposal for an amnesty for on-the-runs is rejected by decent people across the board.
	I again use the mantra of caution to which so many Members have referred. Why do the Government feel   compelled to deliver on that pledge made to Sinn Fein-IRA as part of the joint declaration? The DUP was certainly not party to it. The Government should recognise that circumstances have changed and that parties which, in the words of the Secretary of State, endorsed the joint declarationthe pro-agreement partiesno longer speak for the majority, certainly on the Unionist side. They speak only for a small minority of Unionists in Northern Ireland and the Government should recognise that.
	I regret the fact that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has left the Chamber and is not making a contribution to the debate. She tried to defend her party's role in the joint declaration, and suggested that there was a difference between being consulted and   what the Secretary of State referred to as the pro-agreement endorsement of the terms of the joint declaration. Even at the time, Ministers described the joint declaration, which includes disbandment of the   home battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, the run-down in security and the so-called normalisation process and, as an annexe, provisions for an amnesty for on-the-runs, as a shared understanding among the parties. The Government said again today that the   parties endorsed it, but we certainly did not; we opposed it and we continue to do so. We shall not take lectures from the Ulster Unionist party, which has connived with the Government over the years to allow Sinn Fein-IRA into government on so many occasions following concessions to which it was a party. As a   result, the Ulster Unionists have been rejected overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland.
	We welcome the Bill. It keeps on the statute book important legislative provisions, which is right and proper, because the terrorist threat has not gone away. The Government should take the same approach to other vital issues in Northern Ireland that affect its people deeply. The Government should think again about those matters before it is too late.

Greg Mulholland: Shortly before the start of the new Parliament, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), as members of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, were pleased to make a pleasant and informative visit to Northern Ireland. I pass on our thanks, through the Minister, to the Northern Ireland Office. Our welcome was as warm as the visit was well organised.
	I am pleased to be a member of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee and hope to play a small yet full part in its important work, although it is the first time that I   have accepted a job in an organisation that I hope will be done away with when power is returned to Stormont, the wonderful seat of Government in Northern Ireland that I was so happy to visit. The magnificent view from Stormont looking over the city of Belfast will live with me for a long time. It was my first visit to Northern Ireland, despite having a grandmother from there.
	My generation grew up thinking that Northern Ireland was somewhere that people would go only if they needed to, so it was wonderful to see now a thriving, vibrant European city that reminded me of my home cityLeedsand of Manchester, near where I   was born, and of Glasgow, where I spent two happy years. I agree with the conclusion of my hon. Friend who said that we would very much like to take our spouses and families on our next visit. But I also saw first hand for the first time the roads and areas that are known the world over and I found that experience more startling and more revealing than I could have imagined.
	It was not the murals, the bunting, the memorials or even the peace walls, which I was sad to hear are still getting ever higher and longer, that left the most impression on me, but the comments of the helpful official from the Northern Ireland Office. As we turned a corner, he said, These people are all Catholics. We turned another corner, he said, The people at that bus stop are all Protestants. Indeed, when we turned another corner, we saw a Tesco supermarket, and I   asked, Are you telling me that only one side of the community goes to that supermarket? He said, Yes, that is a Protestant Tesco. Many of us who live on the British mainland have grown up with false assumptions and misunderstandings, and from my own experience, I   know that people need to see some of those things to try even to start to understand them.
	I also saw the debris and the damage caused by the appalling violence of the summer, and it is clear to the Liberal Democrats that most of the measures in the Bill are still needed, which is why we support the Government on that. I concluded that some of the time-limited measures in the Bill are also needed, and, again,   we support the Government on that. Indeed, Lord Carlile's letter, which was so helpfully distributed to us this afternoon, says:
	In sum, I remain of the view that, in terms of the prevention of terrorism, some special powers remain necessary.
	However, some of those powers are more difficult to accept than others.
	In last week's debate on the Terrorism Billa debate in which I was very pleased to take partthere was much discussion about striking a balance and which liberties we must sacrifice to gain greater protection from terrorism. Although I acknowledge that the balance in the Bill is nearly right, I argue that it is not   quite right. From my limited experienceI acknowledge that it is very limited in Northern Ireland matterssurely balance is everything.
	The balance in the Bill is not quite right for two reasons: first, because of what is still there and, secondly, because of what is not there. On what is still there, why has there been no move even to consider the recommendation in the 2004 Carlile report to use three judges in Diplock courts? Surely that would be an important step towards the eventual re-establishment of trial by jury. We fully accept that that is something for the future and that it will be implemented when it can be realistically restored. On what is not in the Bill, section 108 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the oral evidence of senior police officers to be admissible as evidence about people's membership of specific organisations. I   concur with Lord Carlile's conclusion in the 2004 report, which says:
	It is a provision that lies uncomfortably in the broader context of normalisation and the Good Friday Agreement.
	The Bill sends out a message fundamentally and most importantly to the communities in Northern Ireland, but it also sends a clear message to the wider world about Northern Ireland's future. That message is not quite right, and I ask the Government to look again.
	I look forward to my next visit as a member of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to the fine city of Belfast, but I look forward even more to visits after that when that body no longer needs to sit. Most of all, I look forward to visits in the future with my family, quite simply as a tourist. So my message is simple: let us get the balance and the message right because I believe, from my limited experience, that the future of Northern Ireland depends on it.

Gregory Campbell: Given the disparate nature of political opinion in the House, it is pleasing to hear the degree of consensus that has emerged in debating the renewal of the provisions in the Bill. However, as I told the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)this has been repeated innumerable timeswe should proceed with caution. I want to consider that caution.
	At various times in the past 36 years, paramilitary groups have made announcements. Some of them have gone further by engaging in acts of decommissioning. Other statements have been made since the first act of   decommissioning by the Loyalist Volunteer Force. But all those announcements and acts have had a   uniform response from the Government. Almost without exception, the Government have been very anxious immediately to rush to the fences and say, This   is a wonderful stepwhether it was an early announcement of semi-permanent ceasefires, the LVF's initial decommissioning incident, subsequent acts of decommissioning by republican paramilitaries or statements by loyalist paramilitaries. Almost without exception, there has been an immediate, positive response from the Government. For that reason, we should all proceed with caution.
	The LVF carried out an act of decommissioning some years ago and subsequently carried out many further acts of terrorism and intimidation. All those who greeted the LVF's initial act of decommissioning with tremendous hope and expectation should have been more cautious when the IRA indicated its intention to   decommission, and whatever acts transpire subsequentlywe know not as yet the entirety of themone would have thought that caution would be the watchword and that people should not rush to acclaim yet another such action.
	I want to refer to the physical manifestations of a readiness to accept the words of paramilitary groups. That is where I take exception and differ with the Government about how they should deal with the words of the terrorist groups. For example, in relation to the Bill, if the Government are saying, Yes, we should be cautious; yes, we should renew the legislation, why did they not equally say, when the IRA made its statement on 28 July, We will wait and see before we remove the watchtowers on the border. We will proceed cautiously. We will go gently. We will go slowly. But, no, they hastened to remove the watchtowers. They hastened to announce the effective disbandment of the Royal Irish Regiment home service battalions. They hastened on a whole host of other issues in response to an IRA statement, but caution should have been the order of the day for physical manifestations, as it should be with legislation.
	There could be thoseI hope that there are not who say that, because of the statements and decommissioning, we should effectively do away with the legislation in place because the Government could reintroduce measures in future. My response would be that the Government could more easily do that than they could re-erect the border checkpoints, which would take many weeks and months of physical work. However, things that would require more time to put back in place were removed more quickly than the legislation that we are discussing.
	There was much talk over the weekend about the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, who made a declaration on television on Friday evening in which he said that he believed that the war was over. He said that he had not said that before. Many Unionists over the past 11 years erroneously called for Gerry Adams to say   that the war was over. I am interested not in what Gerry Adams says, but in what the IRA does. What it   says is of almost no consequence. When it has disappeared and left the stage, with all its armsboth ancient and moderngone, dismantled and never to return, that will be the point at which the Unionist and the nationalist communities will know that the war is indeed over, not when we hear honeyed words from Gerry Adams.
	The Secretary of State and several other hon. Members mentioned the IMC report that will be published in January. It is 11 years since the first IRA ceasefire, but are we expected in the next 11 weeks to declare whether we believe that the IRA has disappeared from the stage? If the Government are expecting that to happen, I am afraid that they are in for yet more disillusionment and disappointment. Do they think that in 11 weeks the Unionist community will pass judgment despite what it has seen during the failure of the past 11 years? It will take much more time than that. The Government have talked about a working assumption that the IRA has indeed left the stage. It will take more than a working assumption in the next 11 weeks to show that the IRA has indeed vanished.
	Hon. Members have mentioned the Secretary of State's decision to announce the restoration of Assembly allowances on the back of the 28 July statement by the Provisional IRA and the subsequent action. We understand that there will be a move to restore House of Commons allowances to Sinn Fein Members. However, it should not go without comment that, when last year's allowances were disclosed last week, we saw that Sinn Fein Members claimed 80,000 for their additional costs allowance. They claimed more for not attending this Parliament than some Members who come here. If that is not a ludicrous commentary on the allowances situation, I do not know what is.
	Policing is central to the future of Northern Ireland. Few Unionists want Sinn Fein to become a central part of policingI do not know of anybut many people in Northern Ireland want every political party to be in a position in which it can endorse policing with no ambiguity or skeletons in the cupboard, and with no   twin-track strategy of politics by day, but community restorative justice by night, which the hon. Member for Foyle mentioned.
	In response to questions from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last week, the Secretary of State mentioned community support officers. Will the Minister take the opportunity in his winding-up speech to again drive home the message that there is no place, and can be no place, for paramilitaries, or those associated with them, either in the police in Northern Ireland, or as community support officers in Northern Ireland? It would be simply intolerable if a victim could have coming to his or her door someone who was involved with the paramilitary group that caused the problem that made her go to the police in the first instance. I hope that the Minister will yet again rule that out entirely and say that it will not be possible, under any circumstances, for the IRA or any paramilitary grouployalist or republicanto be involved in policing.

William McCrea: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). As has already been indicated, we will support the Bill in the event of a Division.
	The Bill's title is Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill, and terrorism has been a sad realityconstantly and continuouslyin the lives of the people of Northern Ireland, in particular, for more than 30 years. We have witnessed the ravages of terrorism. We have seen what it has done to families, communities and society in general. However, let us never forget that behind each statistic on terrorism is a personal tragedy. Let us not forget the homes and families that have been destroyed because of terrorism in our Province. In not only the United Kingdom as a whole, but across the world, the   reality of terrorism is gripping society. We see how it threatens civilised society throughout the world.
	The tragedy of Northern Ireland politics is that terrorists have been capitulated to and appeased for the past 30 years. The sad reality is that that capitulation and appeasement policy has not ended. The appeasement policy is continuing.
	I must confess that I am absolutely amazed by how gullible successive Governments can be. Whenever the IRA suggests that it will make a statement, it seems that democratic society is supposed to wait with bated breath and then hang on every word of a terrorist thug who makes a statement in the political arena. It is somehow seen that that changes the whole scene and that we must be thankful for it. Government Ministers have even praised the IRA, but for what? Do we thank the terrorists for stopping their terrorism? Are we supposed to thank them for no longerat this present momentshowing the evidence that they are murdering and causing mayhem and destruction in our society?
	I say this without equivocation: terrorist organisations deserve no praise and no thanks from Members of this House. There was no justification whatsoever for their acts of terrorism over the past 35 years. There was no justification for leaving little children without a father. There was no justification for their terrorism, which robbed mothers of their children. Nor do they deserve any thanks because they say, We are not going to continue our terrorist campaign at this moment. We are no longer going to destroy the lives and scatter the bodies of little children across society, the hills, the streets or the roads of Ulster. That is the sickening position that we are inthat somehow we are to praise them, to crawl to them and to make them acceptable in our society. That is what has been happening over the past weeks and months. I believe with all my heart that that is the sickening reality.
	The IRA seems to have got very sensitive. We had the decommissioning of its weapons, or at least those that were known about, and none of those were from 1996. It did not want photographs of that. It was not so sensitive when it allowed the cameras in for other reasons. The Government were happy that the cameras were present when they demolished the watchtowers. They were not as sensitive whenever the troops were taken out and were photographed getting on to the plane. The IRA was not as sensitive about the cameras outside the gates of the prison whenever the IRA terrorists got out as part of the Belfast agreement. It was, however, sensitive when it came to having independent witnesses endorsed by the community and having photographic evidence of the destruction of terrorist weaponry. That is why society in general in Northern Ireland is not jumping up and down but is cynical about what has happened with the IRA.
	Unionists are supposed to believe the IRA because it has made a statement. We are to believe Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, but for the past 35 years Adams and McGuinness denied being in the IRA's so-called army council. They were lying through their teeth. Now, whenever they say, Ah, well now the war is over, we are supposed to believe that somehow this dishonest grouping has turned honest and that those who have shown no integrity are now people of integrity, decency and honesty within our society, and we supposed to bow in submission to them. That is something that the Unionist population will not be doing to the IRA or Gerry Adams. He was part of the IRA machine that committed murder and destroyed the lives of innocent people, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, in Northern Ireland.

Lembit �pik: Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman's advice for us to be cautious and to require proof, why does he feel that we are being made to bow in submission to the IRA?

William McCrea: I did not catch the question, but there has been a constant flow of concessions to the IRA. That is bowing to the IRA, and the flow of concessions has not ended. We are being drip-fed what was agreed at the Weston Park talks and in the declaration and the Belfast agreement. Unionists ask me, What else has been agreed? What else have we not been told? My constituents have a right to know. If this Government have entered into an agreement with the Provisional IRA, they deserve to be told honestly, in a democratic society, what has been done in their name. Remember: this Government are our Government. They are the Government of the United Kingdom.

Mark Durkan: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's disdain for secret deals and secret understandings on what else has been agreed. Does he recognise, however, that things were agreed in the so-called comprehensive agreement of 8 December, not all of which were published? The only people who know what was agreed that was not published are the Governments, Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party.

William McCrea: It is always helpful whenever people who oppose my party ask questions, and I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman. There was no agreement. Certain Government proposals were made and we took certain positions, but no agreement was entered into. Let us make that abundantly clear. We are tied by nothing. Many things were suggested by the British Government, the Irish Government and the American Government. Whenever we think of the current situation with regard to decommissioning, did not they all accept that it had to be verifiable? Did not they all say that photographic evidence would be essential? Where did that go? There was no agreement. That is the proof of it.
	As far as the DUP is concerned, we were honourable in anything that we entered into and in the talks that we had with our Government. We have told them exactly where we stand and the principles on which we stand. I   assure the House that our manifesto shows that we have stood four-square on what we promised the people we would do. There are no back-door deals as far as the DUP is concerned. We have an honest, open-door policy because we have nothing to hide from the people.   The Ulster Unionist party knew the folly of doing back-door deals and saw where it got them. My party is not entering into any sordid deal, unlike the Ulster Unionists. We want everything to be verifiable and open. We certainly want our Government to deal honourable and decently with us as democrats.
	I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to talk about the victims commissioner. The position of victims commissioner is no gift to anyone. Remember that we are talking about victimspeople who have been butchered and slaughtered by terrorists. To give us a commissioner as a concession to a society is totally wrong. He did not mention how the Chief Commissioner for Human Rights and others were appointedto the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, for instance. There was little or no representation from the majority community, but that does not seem to bother certain hon. Members. However, they are stung whenever someone who has been a victim herself heads up a victims commission. Who else would do that other than a victim?

Mark Durkan: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I   have not attacked the concept of a victims commissioner. When the Secretary of State made his statement a couple of weeks ago, we welcomed that office. We also wanted the commitment made in the joint declaration to a forum for victims and survivors to   be brought forward. One could work with the other. I was critical of the way in which the Government appointed the victims commissioner because the only party with which they consulted was the DUP. I agree that we are talking about victims. They did not choose to be victims and they are from all sorts of backgrounds. The appointment should not be on the say-so of one party alone.

William McCrea: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has an insight that no one else has. He thinks that the Government only spoke to one group. I do not know that. I do not know how he has that information. Perhaps he is privy to a special document. All I am saying is that the person who is appointed as victims commissioner should represent genuine victims of the tragedy of our Province. The lady herself is truly a victim and we should salute her and others who have honourably withstood all the terrorism committed against them by the Provisional IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army and other illegal and terrorist organisations.

Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark   Durkan) will know, as the world knows, that this lady is only temporary. She has been appointed for only a year. The appointment was not permanent. To say that she was not appointed properly is a red herring, an accusation made by people who had to scrape the   bottom of the pot to find something against her. The DUP does not believe that the Chief Commissioner for Human Rights was appointed properly. She does not represent the proper score of the people of Northern Ireland. She has taken action and slandered Members of this House, yet she is supposed to be a proper person to administer human rights. Nor do I think that a person from the Irish Republic who knows nothing about Northern Ireland should have been appointed to the Equality Commission. Yet we have had no loud protest from the hon. Gentleman about those appointments. They were all right because they represented his part of the country.

Mark Durkan: rose

William McCrea: I am interested in the exchanges. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) seeks to intervene on my hon. Friend, but I shall continue my speech. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.
	It is disgusting that the Irish Republic can put its nose   into the affairs of Northern Ireland in relation to on-the-runs and such legislation. To me, the murderers of the policemen of Northern Ireland are equal to the murderers of Gerry McCabe, and yet as far as legislation and the Irish Republic are concerned, they are to be treated differently. But the Government will allow those who murdered the police officers and the members of the security forces in Northern Ireland an amnesty in all but name, and that is sickening to the people of Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson: I am a little concerned and I   wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my concern. The victims commissioner's role, of its nature, deals with sensitive issues. It is a difficult job, assisting people who have been massively disadvantaged in life because of the act of evil men and women. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) may well have misgivings about the processes, but will my hon. Friend join me in urging him to put those behind him and give support to the victims commissioner in the crucial task that she has ahead?

William McCrea: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend in his appeal to the hon. Member for Foyle.

Mark Durkan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William McCrea: I want to get on, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to say yes, that will be quick and allow me to move on.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is right. Our misgivings and criticism are not of the person who has been appointed, or even of the concept of the office itself. We have spent a long time saying that more needs to be done for victims, with victims. That is why, whenever the proposal for a victims commissioner has been made, we have always said that there should also be a forum for victims and survivors, because both could work well together to take matters forward. I will have no hesitation in meeting and working positively with the victims commissioner. I   want to see a forum for victims and survivors working alongside her and her successor.

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving that support to the victims commissioner, which will be of great support as she takes this heart-rending responsibility upon her shoulders and deals with the many others who have been in a similar position to her.
	We are asked to believe the word of terrorists that terrorism is over. Is that true? We all know that in the past the IRA has been good at using its surrogates. When it did not want to be associated with a certain action, it used what are now called dissident republicans. It had terrorist organisations that it was happy to use whenever it suited them for a particular occasion. I challenge the Minister to tell the House how many people have been removed from their homes in recent months on the advice of the security forces. How many have had to be removed from their homes since the IRA statement? It is all right to tell the world that the war is over, but in recent weeks constituents of mine with employment in a republican area have had to give that up because they were under threat from republicans, as have those of other hon. Members. If the war is over, why have people been moved out of their house under threat of death? This must be challenged, because in the past the IRA has used other organisations

Peter Robinson: Privatised.

William McCrea: Yes. It is serious. The threat of death is still upon the head of members of the security forces and they are being moved out of their homes.

David Simpson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Up to the end of September, I think that 14 security force member families were moved from their homes, and only this week and last week, I have dealt with four security force member families in my constituency. I urge the Government to speed up the   special purchase of evacuated dwellings scheme, because these families are desperate. We are dealing with the republican movement, and those people are responsible for this.

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I trust that it helps the Minister to exercise his mind when he comes to the Dispatch Box. The House should be careful in accepting the statements of republicans that terrorism is over when, in reality, it is continuing.
	Will the Minister also tell me who it was, since the IRA statement, who forced the McCartney family out of their house. They were not under threat of death by dissident republicans. They were threatened by the Provisional IRA. Since the IRA statement, the last of the family has had to move out of their home. It is a despicable thing. I give credit to the family for the courage that they have shown in standing up and demanding simple justice for their brother who was murdered. They were not asking for special treatment; they were asking that those who committed this foul and dastardly deed of murder be brought to justice. Yet there is a wall of silence, which is active not only in the Provisional IRA, but in the Provisional Sinn Fein movement in recent days. The IRA tells us that the war is over, so will the Minister tell us who threatened the McCartney family and made them leave their home after the IRA statement was made. That is important.
	Criminality is deeply ingrained in terrorist organisations right across the board, so will the Minister tell us whether any of the 26 million stolen in the Northern bank raid has been handed over now that the persons who organised it and were a part of it have turned politician or democrat? Have they turned in the money, or is it, as many people say, the pension fund for provisionals who have been active over the years? We need a complete disbandment and dismantling of the IRA structures; nothing else will be accepted.
	We are saying to this House that yes, we will support the Bill, as it is essential for our Province at this time. The very fact that it is essential proves that the Government do not believe that terrorism is finished in Northern Ireland, but that the deep-seated terrorist philosophy that has been aided and abetted by many in society seems to be deeply ingrained.
	The more concessions that the Minister and his   Government give to this terrorist organisationthe so-called now-turned-democrats of Sinn Fein-IRAthe more they put back any possibility of seeing structures within Northern Ireland. We will not be party to terrorism and terrorists by night, and politics and politicians by day. We want our Province to be rid of the scourge of all terrorism and turned into a prosperous Province that everyone can enjoy but in which only democrats can be allowed to enjoy the proceeds of democracy.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I   have listened with interest to many contributions, particularly that of the Secretary of State. I welcome the renewal of this legislation. It is prudent for the Government to do so, because we continue to have a terrorist threat in Northern Ireland and do not yet live in an entirely normal society. That is evident, as several right hon. and hon. Members have said. I therefore join my colleagues in saying that we will vote for the Bill.
	Reference has been made to the process of normalisation. At the weekend, I read a commentary on the changes that have taken place in the police service in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to the roles of the CID and special branch. There is concern that the police do not have sufficient resources and have been denied access to vital intelligence-gathering techniques in bringing successful prosecutions against terrorists in Northern Ireland. We saw a clear example in the robbery of the Northern bank, which was mentioned by   my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr.   McCrea). There was a lack of intelligence coming through to the police in advance of that robbery, which has secured a place in history as the largest bank heist ever to take place in the United Kingdom. I am afraid that that lack of intelligence is a direct consequence of some of the changes in policing. It is not that we do not want a normal police serviceof course we dobut at times the speed of normalisation runs ahead of the reality on the ground as regards ongoing terrorist activity. The Government need to move carefully.
	Some of the changes in policing have undoubtedly brought benefits to the community. I have seen the benefits of community-style policing in my constituency. But I have also seen the enormous pressure that police resources come under as a result of the downsizing of the police service. It is very difficult for the police to balance and juggle all their competing priorities, and at times, unfortunately, situations are not fully and properly policed. That is regrettable.
	For the time being, the police continue to need the   support of the Armyin particular, the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. That is   why we believe that the announcement in August of   the disbandment of the home service battalions, while having regard to their ongoing operational commitment, was at best premature and was unwelcome in terms of the message that it sent out, not least to the soldiers who serve in the home service battalions. I   regret the manner in which they have been treated, and I particularly regret the manner in which the Government handled the announcement of the disbandment process. As I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State, the mishandling of the announcement is being compounded by the fact that the soldiers are being kept in the dark about their future and are now being told that it could be January next year before they know what is going to happen in relation to redundancy packages and their options in   terms of remaining in the Army and serving in Northern Ireland. That is unacceptable. I have urged the Secretary of State to see what he can do, and for our part we will see what we can do, to persuade the Secretary of State for Defence to move with more haste on this matter, while ensuring that the right package is offered to the soldiers.
	Policing, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) also mentioned, is a crucial issue in Northern Ireland. It would be entirely unacceptable to have in the Government of Northern Ireland a party that still refuses to support the police. I   noted that in a recent interview Martin McGuinness said that it could not be a precondition of restoring the political institutions that Sinn Fein supports the police. Let me make it clear that for us it is a precondition of democracy that it is unacceptable for a party that is in government and is tasked with the responsibility of making and upholding the law to fail to support the forces of law and order. The Government must press home that point.
	I say to the Minister that we do not want to hear about more concessions being made to Sinn Fein on policing. I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark   Durkan) and his party about the restorative justice scheme that Sinn Fein is pushing. That rings alarm bells right across the community in Northern Ireland, and the Government need to be very careful about how they proceed. If they are going to take the approach of making concessions to Sinn Fein on restorative justice or policing, they need not take it for granted that my party will continue to give support to such changes and sit by on the sidelines doing nothing. If the Government try to buy Sinn Fein's support for policing through such concessions, they need not assume that my party will continue to participate in policing institutions such as the Policing Board given that policing might be corrupted.
	The need for this legislation remains because of the ongoing activities of various paramilitary organisations. We do not yet know whether the statement made by the Provisional IRA at the end of July and the subsequent act of decommissioning, whatever that may have been, represent a complete end to the IRA's violence and criminality. We have rightly approached this issue with caution and scepticism given the manner in which the IRA has acted in the past when it has said one thing and   contradicted its words with actions that are contrary to   the rule of law. That applies, of course, to all paramilitary organisations. We urge all such organisations to move swiftly to declare an end to their violence and criminal activity and to accept that the only way forward in Northern Ireland is the path of peace and democracy. That is our consistent position, and we will continue to urge it.
	On the restoration of the political institutions, and in particular the Assembly, the Government must understand that we will not be prematurely pushed into government unless we are convinced that everyone involved is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which involves not only our being convinced, but the community that we represent being convinced. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who will soon be my right hon. Friend, has consistently saidthe Prime Minister also said this at the Dispatch Box on an earlier occasion in reply to my hon. Friendeveryone must be satisfied that this time the restoration of the political institutions is for real. That includes the community, who must have sufficient confidence in the process. I regret that the IRA did not go further in its act of decommissioning and go the extra mile by creating transparency, which would have allowed people to see more clearly exactly what happened and how it happened.
	I agree with the former moderator of the Presbyterian Church, Dr. David McGaughey, about the role of the so-called independent witnesses, the two churchmen, whom he described as observers rather than witnesses. Whether they are in a court of law or whether they are a character in a television programme, a witness normally provides testimony about what they have seen, but the two churchmen cannot do that, because their agreement with the IRA means that they cannot speak in detail. As Dr. McGaughey said, they   acted as observers rather than witnesses, which we regret. If the IRA had gone further, it would have had a more positive impact on public confidence.
	I join other hon. Members in welcoming the appointment of Mrs. Bertha Mcdougall as the interim victims commissioner in Northern Ireland. I have known Mrs. Mcdougall for a number of years and worked with her when she chaired the Forgotten Families group, which represents pre-1982 RUC widows. I watched as she campaigned vigorously on behalf of those widows, and she is a good appointment and the right person to fulfil that difficult and challenging role. She will bring personal compassion and understanding to the job, because her husband, who was a RUC reservist, was murdered in Belfast by the Irish National Liberation Army. All hon. Members should welcome her appointment, and we wish her well in her difficult and challenging role. The task will not be easy, and she will undoubtedly have her critics, because it is difficult to deal with a large group of people with different perspectives, many of whom have different views of victimhood.
	I shall lay down a marker. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and I are responsible for liaising with victims groups, which I   have met on a number of occasions. A victim is someone who has suffered as a result of terrorist violence or general violence in Northern Ireland, but they are not a perpetrator. A victim does not go out in the name of a paramilitary organisation and seek to take life and cause destruction, and the Government must understand that point. It would be totally unacceptable if the definition of victimhood were extended to embrace those who, whichever organisation they were associated with, were engaged in bringing hurt, pain and destruction to lives and property in Northern Ireland. The victims groups have made themselves clear on that point, and I know that they will put that view across to the Government and the new victims commissioner.
	I must make another point on behalf of victims in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has told us on many occasions that some aspects of the process are at times unpalatable, but that we must accept them because of the direction in which we are moving. The victims have had to accept a lot, and I know that the   Secretary of State visited Lisburn in my constituency last week, where he met members of Families Achieving Change Together and the new victims commissioner. I know that the victims told him about their deep hurt and sense of injustice at things such as the release of the prisoners, the removal of the name, Royal Ulster Constabulary and other hurtful concessions. He should not underestimate victims' deep sense of injustice at the proposal that legislation should be introduced to provide terrorists who are on the run with something akin to an amnesty.
	The proposal to extend concessions to terrorists, whether or not they are IRA terrorists, who have fled the jurisdiction and who are fugitives from justice to allow them to come forward and confess to crime goes against the whole basis of justice. If the Government proceed down that line, they will besmirch justice and democracy in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. They must think carefully about the issue, which is very sensitive and has the potential to create a lot more hurt and pain for those who have suffered.
	It is one thing to lose one's loved one and live with years of hurt, pain and grief, but the Government will significantly compound that hurt if they proceed with a proposition that was not part of the Belfast agreement, that has never been voted for or endorsed by anyone in   Northern Ireland and that does not, so far as I   understand it, have the support of any of the democratic parties in Northern Irelandthe hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will correct me if I am wrong. Even the Alliance party opposes that proposition, along with most of civil society.
	The Government must think carefully. If they believe that the IRA's campaign of violence and act of decommissioning is over, why are we making this biggest-of-all concessions? The Secretary of State must re-examine the issue, because it will set back political progress in Northern Ireland and damage community confidence. As I have said, this party's position is that unless people have confidence in the political process, we will not act prematurely and join a Government who do not have the confidence of the people whom we represent. The issue is important, and it has the potential to set back the day when the political institutions are restored, which I regret, because I want to see properly functioning, local, democratic government restored to Northern Ireland, but it will not be at the price of justice for the victims of terrorism. We will vigorously oppose legislation to help terrorists who are on the run, and I   hope that such legislation will be opposed in the other place and that the Government have cause to rethink their approach.
	I welcome the Bill, although I hope that the need for it will have gone in the not-too-distant future because we have a truly peaceful, normal society. We genuinely want to see that happen, but we will not turn a blind eye to the reality that it has not happened on the ground and that it is still some way off. Instead of going down the road of further concessions to try to win the peace, which has not worked in the past, the Government must uphold the principles of democracy and justice in Northern Ireland and make it clear to the terrorists that their violence has no part in Northern Ireland's future and that the Government will not be tempted to seek to buy off those who have engaged in such violence. Every time they do that, it undermines the role of the democratic parties in Northern Ireland. It undermines the role of the hon. Member for Foyle just as much as it undermines the role of my party and its approach to politics in Northern Ireland.
	It is time that the Government stood beside the democrats and the democratic parties in Northern Ireland, and took account of the genuine fears and worries that persist in the community that we represent. I know that, in recent days, the Secretary of State has met people who have told him of those fears. I say to him, however, that it is one thing to listen, but another to understand and act on the things that he has heard. I   hope that he will do that in the days that lie ahead.

Laurence Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr.   Lidington). We regret the necessity for the Bill, but given the continuing situation in Northern Ireland it   is indeed necessary. That was acknowledged by all   who spoke except the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark   Durkan), who would have preferred the Government to be bolder in moving towards a more normal situation in Northern Ireland. The rest of the House realises that we are not yet in such a situation. I am sorry that we must support the Bill, but we must.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) made a measured speech. I think he reflected the sentiments of the House in expressing the hope that this was the last occasion on which we would have to consider such legislation. He acknowledged, however, that the present circumstances could represent a false dawn, and regretted the fact that many debates of this kind took place against a continuing threat of violence.
	I hesitate to try to sum up a speech by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)soon to be the right hon. Memberin just a few words, but I   shall do my best. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to an apparent contradiction in the Government's position: although we are constantly told that things are much better in Northern Irelandthat the IRA has given up all its weapons, and is ceasing all its activitieswe still need to introduce the Bill. Indeed, a number of Members drew attention to that apparent contradiction. No doubt the Minister will set our minds at rest when he explains the Government's position.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who chairs the Select Committee, madeas usuala telling and powerful speech. He called for Sinn Fein Members to take their seats, and, more important, for the Government to be seen to treat them in the same way as everyone else. That, I think, echoes the thoughts of many other Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) stressed the need for patience, and condemned loyalist violence. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds)who has apologised for not being able to stay for the winding-up speechesurged caution, and emphasised the importance of not risking the welfare of people in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg   Mulholland) spoke of his first visit to Northern Ireland. He mentioned the many good things that he saw, but also his disappointment at some unfortunate aspects of the Province that still remain. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) said, in a passionate speech, that it mattered what the IRA did, not just what it said. He also ridiculedI think I am right to use that wordthe action of members of Sinn Fein in claiming allowances for a job that they did not actually do. It surprises many people that they are able to do that.
	In another passionate speech, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) said that we should not   thank the terrorists for ceasing to do things that they should never have been doing in the first place. He   rightly said that there could be no justification for   acts of terrorism on either side of the divide. In a wide-ranging speech, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said that members of all political parties who seek to take their seats in government should support the police. It is nonsensical to think that a constitutional party can exist without supporting the police, who are there to enforce the laws that that party will pass.
	As I have said, it is unfortunate that we need the Bill, but we do need it. People in Northern Ireland want many things, but most of them want to be treated normally. When I last visited Northern Ireland, only last week, I saw the need to go beyond having meetings with the police and political parties, important though that is. I took myself to a hospital, a school and one or two other places, and saw excellent work being carried out. The school system, which for some reason the Government seem intent on dismantling, is achieving very good resultsthe best in the United Kingdom, I   believethrough grammar schools, and Northern Ireland education in general. Those facts are lost, however, when all we and the media talk about is security. It is important to look beyond that.
	That said, we must recognise that the security situation in Northern Ireland is still very difficult. According to recent reports, dissident republicans tried to attract disgruntled members of the Provisional IRA following the IRA statement. The Continuity IRA remains
	a dangerous organisation which planned to engage in terrorism and other crimes, possibly more than in the recent past.
	Then there is the feud between the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the Ulster Volunteer Force. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, I visited the police in Belfast recently. I watched videos showing people dressed in Orange Order sashes taking them off and throwing missiles at the police. That is unacceptable. We condemn that violence; indeed, we condemn violence on both sides of the divide. It cannot continue. While it does continue, however, we need the Bill.
	According to the recent Monitoring Commission report, during a period of six months recently there were 69 shootings, more or less evenly balanced between the two sides of the divide. There were 70 paramilitary assaults, and six murders. That too is unacceptable, at a time when there is supposed to be peace in Northern Ireland. We must recognise, however, that we have some way to go before we secure the peace that we all want.
	We do not just need statements from the IRA or, indeed, the LVF; we need action. More than anything else, we need a change in hearts and minds. We need people on both sides of the divide to be unwilling to engage in violence to further their political ends. We have needed that change in hearts and minds for a long time, but we will see it only when people in Northern Ireland feel that both sides are being treated fairlywhen they perceive that constitutional politicians who seek to advance their arguments by peaceful means are rewarded, and that terrorists are not.
	We shall examine one or two aspects of the Bill in more detail in Committee, but for now I wish it well, although I very much regret the need for it.

Shaun Woodward: We have had a good debate and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr.   Lidington) covered several substantive points, which other hon. Members expanded. We thank him and his party for their support. He rightly recognises that the measures are exceptional but proportionate, and rightly drew attention to last night's statement from the LVF.
	The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said that we should thank church and community leaders for the positive pressure that they exerted to help bring about the end of the summer's feud. They have shown exemplary leadership in difficult circumstances.
	The Secretary of State said that a fundamental change had occurred in the security situation. The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that he awaited further evidence. So do we. However, let us not underestimate the evidence of the summerthe statement of 28 July and the act of decommissioning. The Bill is a further step in creating an enabling environment. It does not mean that we have arrived at security normalisation, but it is necessary to prepare for such a day. The Bill plays its part in that but, for the present, leaves the special measures in place. It prepares for the future but takes no risks with the security of people in Northern Ireland now.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked whether part VII would continue to be needed after August 2008. The Secretary of State set out the position and we are confident that, in the future, that will not be the case. He also asked whether part VII would be needed to deal with the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA in the future. The United Kingdom has some of the strongest and most effective counter-terrorist legislation in the world. We are satisfied that, after the part VII provisions have been repealed, the permanent counter-terrorism powers that apply throughout the UK will be sufficient to deal with any residual threat. However, as my right hon. Friend made clear, we will keep the security situation under constant review and if additional provision is necessary in the future, I have no doubt that he will return to Parliament.
	The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) asked whether we would replace Diplock courts with the three-judge courts that Lord Carlile recommended. We remain committed to the ideal of a return to jury trial. Indeed, we intend to go on examining what may be required for paramilitary-type trials, in which jurors could be subject to intimidation. However, we do not want to prejudge the outcome of any considerations by commenting on a specific model.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked about   Lord Carlile's recommendation of moving to the three-judge system of the Republic. I simply remind him of the words of Lord Carlile's 2004 report. He stated:
	The present single judge courts continue to offer a high standard of justice: there is no evidence of any deficit in the quality of single court judges.
	The hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Montgomeryshire asked about jury trials. The Government recognise that a serious risk of jury intimidation remains in a small number of cases in Northern Ireland. It would therefore be irresponsible to leave those who participate in court proceedings at risk from those who wish systematically to undermine the administration of justice through intimidation. We are mindful that arrangements need to be put in place to ensure the continuing effectiveness of the criminal justice system. However, I am sure that hon. Members understand that until the detailed, inter-agency work that is now under way has been completed, it would not be appropriate for me to outline specific proposals. There will be opportunities for hon. Members to have that discussion in due course.

Lembit �pik: The Under-Secretary makes a reasonable point and he is right to be cautious. Will he agree to hold a substantial discussion about the matter in Committee, subject to Lord Carlile's furnishing us with more information in the interim and in advance of the Committee stage?

Shaun Woodward: That will be decided by leave of the Chair, but we would welcome such discussion, not only in Committee but in the future. We want to ensure that all arrangements that we put in place for the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland are robust and appropriate for the future of Northern Ireland and its security system.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked about time limits on cases. The option of introducing statutory limits remains open to Ministers. However, the Government have introduced several initiatives recentlyfor example, the roll-out of the new public prosecution system. He also asked about the security industry and vetting arrangements. We are undertaking a thorough review of the regulatory regime for the private security industry in Northern Ireland. It will focus not only on criminal activity but on good governance, putting in place a comprehensive framework for the future.
	The hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Montgomeryshire and for Leeds, North-West asked about section 108. We disagree with Lord Carlile. We believe that the provision continues to have some utility in the current climate. The convictions of Real IRA members in the Irish Republic with the assistance of a similar provision reinforces that view buta crucial butif an enabling environment is maintained, section 108 will cease to have effect, along with the rest of part VII, on 31 July 2007. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked about the   number of cases that involved section 108. Several cases are pending in which it could be used.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr.   Harris) made several supportive comments for which we are grateful. Priority is being given to the safety of people throughout Northern Ireland and he is right to emphasise that we are at an historic moment. Decommissioning weapons is not about concessions; it is essential if progress is to be made. I stress that we are making progress in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire rightly praised his noble Friend Lord Carlile. His reports are exemplary and important in shaping the debate about the legislation. We may not agree with every single word, but weand, I believe, all hon. Membersare in deep debt to his work.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised several issues, not least intimidation. We are especially worried about the intimidation of witnesses. We need the criminal justice system to work effectively now and in future. We will actively consult to get a system that works best for everybody in Northern Ireland. He and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), who cannot currently be in his place, referred to community restorative justice systems. I said in the House last week that we are aware of concerns about and potential difficulties with the role of those systems. That is why we shall proceed cautiously and issue guidelines on their operation. It is important to remind hon. Members that they are not a substitute for or an alternative to policing. The schemes will deal with low-level cases of criminal behaviour, which have been referred by statutory agencies. The Police Service of Northern Ireland will be informed of all referrals. The schemes are not an alternative, but part of the criminal justice system, in conjunction with the PSNI.
	The hon. Member for Foyle asked what would happen to the forum for victims. I remind him of the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made only last week about the appointment of the interim commissioner for victims. My right hon. Friend has asked her to
	consider the modalities of establishing a Victims and Survivors Forum.
	I add my congratulations to the soon-to-be right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). In answer to his comments, of course people have a right to state their convictions. He was right to remind the House of the deep feelings that must be reconciled to achieve lasting peace. His memorable depiction of the children whom he has personally comforted at funerals, whose fathers have been cruelly taken away from them, is a reminder to every hon. Member of the responsibilities that we all bear in bringing about lasting peace. He is right that we ask a great deal of people in Northern Ireland in the process, but we do that to deliver the greater deal of lasting peace for them.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made several comments about the need for even-handedness. We shall endeavour to ensure that all our work reflects that approach. We are grateful for his characteristic and energetic start as Chairman.
	The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr.   Fraser), who is a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, raised several issues and we look forward to working with him. We are taking all the steps that we can on normalisation. We take full advice on security matters from the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Minister referred a moment ago to the need for even-handedness and sensitivity. He might not be aware that, tomorrow evening in New York, the National Committee on American Foreign Policy is hosting a dinner at which it plans to give a peace award to Gerry Adams for his work with the IRA. Will the Minister assure me that no representative of Her Majesty's Government will attend that event? Were they to do so, it would demonstrate insensitivity and a lack of even-handedness.

Shaun Woodward: I was unaware of the dinner tomorrow night. I believe that such an issue would be a matter for Capitol Hill and not for this Government. However, if I can ascertain anything more for the hon. Gentleman in the next 24 hours, I will.
	I would like to thank the hon. Member for Belfast, North for his support for the Bill, which he described as sensible. He rightly spoke of the need for caution, as   did other Members, including the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). We share that need for caution; we do not want to go ahead in a headlong rush. The hon. Member for Belfast, North and I disagree about the interpretation of the speed of the process. However, we do not disagree about the desire to secure peace in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for East Londonderry raised a number of other issues, including policing in Northern Ireland. He was right to say that policing was central to the future there. Huge progress has been made, and there is more to be made. I agree with him that there is absolutely no place for paramilitaries to take up a place in the PSNI. That position was also firmly set out by Chris Patten in his report a few years ago.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim raised a number of issues, and I listened carefully to his impassioned speech. I respect him deeply, and I respect his sincerely held views, although I do not agree with his every interpretation. However, I certainly share his admiration and concern for the McCartney family. Let us be clear that intimidation and the crimes associated with it have no place in the future of Northern Ireland. That is the case irrespective of the quarter from which the intimidation comes, be it dissident republicans or the criminal behaviour of a small but significant number of so-called loyalists.
	The hon. Member for Lagan Valley made a deeply important speech, particularly referring to the Royal Irish Regiment. We should all recognise that the settlement that I believe and hope we shall be able to announce in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence in the months to come will owe a great deal to the hon. Gentleman's relentless work on the regiment's behalf.
	A number of issues have been raised in this debate.   One that I have not yet referred to concerns the on-the-runs legislation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bring to the House at a later stage. On that, let me say simply one thing. A number of hon. Members have suggested that it might be a form of amnesty. That legislation will in no shape or form be an amnesty.
	We have to look ahead. The Government are mindful of their responsibilities for the future, but also for the present. The UK has some of the strongest and most effective counter-terrorism legislation in the world. That permanent framework protects the public against all forms of terrorism. It applies, and will continue to apply, equally to Northern Ireland and to the rest of the UK. In contrast, the part VII provisions remain a necessary and proportionate response to the particular security situation that has existed in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years.
	As the Secretary of State made clear when he opened this debate, there have been significant and historic developments in the past few months. These give rise to a realistic expectation that, within two years, a return to   a normalised security environment might be achieved. At such a stage, the rationale for special security provisions for Northern Ireland would disappear. The Bill enables them to be repealed. However, we are not yet at that point. The initial signs are promising, but the Government will not take risks with the safety of the people of Northern Ireland. It is therefore prudent to retain the part VII provisions until security normalisation has been realised. The Bill allows for that, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time

TERRORISM (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill:
	Committal
	1.   The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2.   Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 10th November 2005.
	3.   The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4.   Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6.   Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7.   Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any   further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. [Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Weights and Measures

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Weights and Measures (Miscellaneous Foods) (Amendment) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.
	Ordered,

Delegated Legislation

That the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Amendment)Regulations 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 2400), dated 24th   August 2005 and the Tryptophan in Food (England) Regulations 2005, (S.I., 2005, No. 2630), dated 21st September 2005 be referred   to Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation. [Mr. Heppell.]

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
	That
	(1) (a) the matter of the Draft Priorities and Budget 20062008, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, and
	(b) the proposal for the draft Rates (Capital Values etc.) (Northern Ireland)
	Order 2005, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 15th   November at half-past Two o'clock; and
	(3) at that sitting
	(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the matter and the legislative proposal referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
	(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the matter referred to the Committee; and
	(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

HEALTH

Ordered,
	That John Austin be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr Ronnie Campbell be added.[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION
	  
	Council Tax

Rob Marris: I   present a petition that is one of a series instigated by the Isitfair campaign on council tax. Mr. Donald Morris of Wolverhampton has worked tirelessly to collect the signatures for it, and it has been signed by 1,416 people in Wolverhampton, South-West.
	The Petitioners declare:
	Year on year, the above-inflation increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay. They further declare that the proposed property revaluation and rebanding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse. The Petitioners request that the House vote to replace the council tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income, such a tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

HEALTH SERVICES (WEST NORFOLK)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Henry Bellingham: I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me this Adjournment debate.
	I want to focus on the Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency, and on the West Norfolk primary care trust, and to examine the underfunding of the PCT and the accumulated debt of the hospital, which currently stands at 11 million. I shall also consider the penal usage charge that is being applied to the deficit, which is no more than a fine or penalty. Last July, the chairman and the chief executive of the Queen Elizabeth hospital trust resigned because of the funding problems the trust was facing. That led to what can only be described as a very serious situation.
	I shall start by outlining the wider background to this case. As I have time to do so, I shall go into a little more detail than I would otherwise have done. I returned to the House in 2001 and one of my immediate observations was that I was getting many more letters about the NHS than I did when I was an MP in a previous incarnation up to 1997. That was partly because the expectations of my constituents have been raised, especially by the Government going on and on about all the extra money that is going into the NHS. People are more demanding now and expect higher standards. The majority of the complaints are not against staff but against the system and the administration of the NHS.
	All MPs have heard their fair share of local NHS stories, but nothing gives rise to greater anger than cancelled operations. I have here a letter from a constituent and I am afraid that it is by no means unique. This constituent was diagnosed with kidney stones on his right and left sides on 20 February 2004. He had to wait until 10 May for a hospital appointment with a consultant. He then had an operation planned for 24 May 2005, nearly a year later. That operation was cancelled and postponed until 27 May, then cancelled and postponed until 3 June, then cancelled and postponed until 23 June, and then cancelled again. There are many reasons why those operations were cancelled, but my constituent's sense of anger and betrayal must be seen to be believed. To understand it properly, one must examine the correspondence. I am afraid that that case, which I mention because it is probably the worst of the pile of local NHS cases that I   currently have, is by no means unique. There have been many other similar ones. It is not necessarily the fault of the staff but of the system breaking down.
	What is happening? The money that the Government are putting into the local NHS is simply not getting   through to patient care. I had a long talk with a well-known local consultant earlier today. He said:
	There are now endless layers of management, monitoring our activities and then counting this activity against Government targets. All the time the clinical coalface is being squeezed.
	He went on to say that if the extra money going into the NHS actually got through to patient care, we really would have a first-class local NHS. As the Minister will be aware, that is borne out by the recent National Audit Office report, which concluded that productivity in the NHS across the country
	has declined by 1 per cent. every year since 1997.
	It continued:
	managers have been recruited at three times the rate of clinical staff.
	That is staggering. According to a recent article in The   Daily Telegraph that I dug out, the increase in salaries for bureaucrats in the NHS equals the sum of NHS deficits.
	Another cause of some of the problems in my local health service is the primary care trust structure, which does not help at all. As my hon. Friends who represent Norfolk know, we had a Norfolk health authority until about eight years ago, which has been replaced by a large number of local PCTs that are inherently bureaucratic and top-heavy on management, hugely duplicate management layers and are expensive. To the Government's credit, they have belatedly seen the light and are effectively going back to the old system, with one PCT for Norfolk. Let us consider the waste and accumulated extra costs of those eight years and the inevitable destruction as the PCT system is overhauled, streamlined and reformed.
	I want to consider the historic underfunding of the health service in west Norfolk. The Queen Elizabeth hospital has fallen behind the other Norfolk hospital trusts. Over the past four years, the average annual compound growth rate for the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital has been 13.2 per cent., that for James Paget, a similarly sized hospital trust covering the eastern end of the county, has been 10.7 per cent., and that for the Queen Elizabeth hospital has been 7.4 per cent.
	There is no question but that the pressures in west Norfolk have been exacerbated by a big increase in the population of over-65sa 23 per cent. increase over the   past eight yearswho, of course, have more complex medical conditions. There is also a growing population in west Norfolk. In 1997, the population of west Norfolk, which covers the whole of my constituency and a lot of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser), as defined by the NHS guidelines, was 205,000. In 2005, that had increased to 222,000. Furthermore, in 1997, emergency admissions to the Queen Elizabeth hospital were 3,700, whereas in 2005, that figure is predicted to be 8,700. Of course, there are more cars on the roads and more accidents as a consequence. There is also a failure of primary care, with many of my constituents gong to accident and emergency rather than having their problems sorted out in a local surgery.
	The Queen Elizabeth hospital, however, is doing what it does best: treating patients, many more of them, and providing high standards of health care. But because it is treating more patients and achieving better throughput than ever before, it has a debt of 11 million, the consequences of which I will consider in more detail.
	The West Norfolk primary care trust has been seriously   underfunded for a number of years. This year, it is receiving 15 million less than the target set by the   Department of Health's Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. Even though the Minister, Lord   Warner, has promised in a letter that future increases will be above the national norm, that will still leave the PCT with a deficit of 7.3 million for 2008. I ask the Minister to comment on what his ministerial colleague, Lord Warner, has said, as he will have plenty of time to do so in his wind-up.
	Let us examine the consequences of that deficit. First, we had the resignations of the chairman and chief executive of the trust in July. I do not know whether having the two key guys resigning is unique, but they were under real pressure, felt completely boxed in by the funding crisis and believed that they had to stand down. It was highly regrettable that they did, because in some ways it made matters worse On the other hand, we now have a clean slate to move forward.
	There have been ward closures. As the Minister will know, because, obviously, he has done his homework, the Elm and Denver wardsboth surgery wardshave been amalgamated, and the West Dereham and West Newton wards, both of which were involved with the care of the elderly, have been merged. We have lost 57 beds, and the Queen Elizabeth hospital's beds per thousand of population ratio was already one of the lowest in the region. There have been no redundancies, but there will be a freeze on recruitment, and there is bound to be an effect on patient care.
	I am sure that the management of the hospital, to whom I spoke this morning, and the Minister will say that the impact on patient care will be minimal. Closing 57 beds, however, is not good news. The consultants to whom I have spoken are very concerned. They tell me that it will inevitably mean shorter stays, more pressure on patients and staff, a possible dilution of nursing care, and possibly even an impact on waiting lists. In addition, the Arthur Levin day surgery unit will be forced to close for six weeks, adding to pressure on patients. The funding of replacement equipment and repairs to equipment will also be on a very tight budget.
	How do the Government react to all that? A number of letters have come through to me, including one from Lord Warner, who explained in some detail about what was going on and the PCT allocations. He admits that the Department of Health's Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation predicts that the West Norfolk PCT will still be 3.5 per cent., or more than 7 million under target by 200708, but what impact will the reorganisation of the PCTs have on that prediction? The   noble Lord went on to say that all is under control, because more is going into the health service. It is the usual storymore and more money is going in, so we should not be complaining and there should not be problems.
	I wrote to the Prime Minister. He does not always reply to Back Benchers who are not Privy Councillors. He does not necessarily always reply to people who have had a spat with him at Prime Minister's questions, as I   have, but to be fair to him he wrote me a very nice letter, which began Dear Henry and ended yours, Tony and which I appreciated. Again, I had the standard line about how much more money is going into the health service and how the position overall is very bright. He also said that the changes taking place locally
	will mean that the management will need to make tough decisions but, I am sure you will agree, the provision of high-quality healthcare, which meets the needs of local population, will at no stage be compromised.
	That could be wishful thinking if one looks at what the consultants are saying. Exactly the same tone of letter came from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).
	Of course I am grateful to Ministers for coming back to me and telling me what is going on. I appreciate that no Minister wants dissatisfied MPs on their own Benches or on the Opposition Benches. Ministers want to do their level best to get all this right. However, the Minister who will reply to the debate must appreciate that we must do our best for our constituents.
	One reaction from this Government has upset me deeply. Far from writing off the debt, which, as I have illustrated, is no fault of the hospital or its staff, the Government have imposed the usage charge. I am concerned about that. The Government have said that, by March next year, the deficit of the hospital will be 11 million. They are imposing a usage fee on that of 10 per cent., making a total of 1.1 million. They are adding another 500,000, so the total amount is 1.6 million. The hospital will also have to pay 10 per cent. interest if it borrows any money. That seems completely ridiculous. It is unfair. In fact, it is penal.
	If the hospital went to a high street bank as a thoroughly reputable, solid organisation, it would surely secure a commercial lending rate of perhaps 1 or 2 per cent. over base. It could go into the eurobond market and borrow at under 4 per cent. but the Government say that, if it borrows money from HMG, it has to pay 10 per cent. interest and it cannot borrow from anyone else. Furthermore, if it has a deficit, it has to pay the 10 per cent. usage charge.
	Is there a hidden agenda to penalise some NHS unit and trusts? Is there a hidden agenda even to make some of them fail completely? Surely that is the logical conclusion of that system. I hope that the Minister will answer those points.
	As for morale at the hospital, the situation is altogether different. Although precarious, the situation is looking more robust than might otherwise be expected. The staff at the hospital are working very hard in extremely difficult circumstances. I praise them for all they have done to keep everything going and to keep the whole system moving forward. I also praise their professionalism. The hospital has met its access targets, particularly on A and E and outpatients. It has a recovery plan in place, which I am sure the Minister will tell us about, up to March 2008, but there is a feeling of uncertainty. Every successful organisation needs to recruit new people. It needs a flow of new ideas. One of   my concerns with the freeze on recruitment that I   mentioned is on the nursing front.
	I have a selection of letters here from constituents. I   have received a number of letters in the past few weeks. One mature student nurse said:
	I am becoming increasingly concerned regarding the prospect of finding employment as a newly qualified nurse at this hospital.
	I received an e-mail saying:
	My job is to educate students wishing to undertake a career in the Nursing Profession. We have a cohort of students that are just about to qualify and have been told by the clinical staff that they will probably not be offered jobs. Many of these students are mature, with families and are settled in the area, so would find it difficult to either move or to travel long distances to work.
	Another e-mail from a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said:
	I am currently a student nurse at the hospital due to qualify in the next few weeks, and am more than a bit concerned at the situation I may be facing due to the hospital's financial decision to make cut backs. At the present it is very uncertain if the hospital will be able to offer myself and my colleagues any hope of there being any vacancies for us.
	As I said, new blood is essential for any organisation to rejuvenate and to build morale. I am concerned about that. I am concerned about retention, too. If morale is good, one can innovate and modernise.
	Morale has been good up to now. That is why a lot has been achieved on the modernisation programme. I do not want to be negative because the staff at the hospital keep writing to me, telling me and telephoning me to say that a lot is going on with paramedics' extended roles, the spinal clinic and the hip and knee clinic, and that the pre-admission clinics are going well. A lot is happening on the diabetic and community nurses link, on the haematology front and with the new critical care system, which won a national award. A lot is happening on the digital radiology front. I could go on.
	The staff have done a great deal in engaging charities. For the day surgery unit, 3.4 million was raised. For the resonance imaging scanner, 750,000 was raised. The Macmillan unit raised 500,000. The paediatric day   centre raised 500,000. Those initiatives require engagement, high morale and motivation. They require   a sense of belief in the mission and in the future. I am concerned that all that could come unstuck unless something is done.
	Does the Minister recognise how precarious the situation is? Does he agree that the Queen Elizabeth hospital and west Norfolk have been underfunded? Does he agree that there is a structural problem at the heart of the funding mechanism that fails to recognise all the key factors in west Norfolk? Is there any chance of the Minister writing off some of this debt? If not, will he look again at the usage charge, which is wholly iniquitous? All it will do is make a bad situation worse. It is penalising staff who are giving their all to try to retrieve the situation and working professionally with dedication and motivation. If the usage charge is not reviewed urgently, anger and resentment will grow.
	As a consultant said, the hospital's
	so-called debt and the usage charge is an unjust millstone that threatens the equity of health care in west Norfolk.
	Those words were well chosen. He did not say that it will be a disaster because he knows and trusts the staff at the hospital, who live in my constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk and that of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). The consultant knows how dedicated staff are, but they feel let down. There is an opportunity now for the Minister to tell us what he can do, to show that he has listened to their concerns and to give us some good news.

Norman Lamb: First, I   congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this debate and thank him for inviting other Norfolk hon. Members to contribute to it. The debate has more force if the message comes from across the parties and I welcome the approach that he has taken.
	I endorse all that the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of tackling this problem head on. He has done a lot of work in representing the interests of users of the hospital and I pay tribute to him for that. He spoke about staff morale and it is worth making the point that in an organisation faced with large deficits and change at the topwith the chairman and chief executive leaving in June this yearit is difficult for staff to keep their morale up and to maintain standards of professionalism. Clearly, they have done that and they need to be applauded.
	Despite the difficult circumstances, they have managed to achieve their out-patient waiting time target three months ahead of schedule and they are either at or close to hitting accident and emergency waiting time targets and should be congratulated.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the loss of 57 beds, which is bound to have an impact on patient care. One can look in cold terms at the average stay at the hospital and compare it with others around the country. But if, on an emergency basis, we attempt to cut the number of beds as quickly as the hospital has to do, there is bound to be an impact. The Minister would be wise to acknowledge that that adverse impact is likely to occur. If we lose beds at the current rate, the inevitable consequence, described by the hon. Gentleman, is the cancellation of operations, resulting in a lot of personal anguish for the patient and their family.
	There is also a wider impact. The hon. Gentleman and I have campaigned on behalf of Wells hospital, which is in the west of my constituency, close to the border with the hon. Gentleman's constituency. This small cottage hospital closed temporarily in December last year. It is still closed, at least in part because both the local primary care trusts, which both contributed financially to the operation of the hospital, are financially strapped. Inevitably, in trying to get their recovery plans delivered, they face an impossible task when the demand of the local community, rightly, is that that hospital be reopened.
	The loss of those intermediate beds has an impact in my area and that of the hon. Gentleman. When combined with the loss of 57 beds, including beds for the elderly at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, the overall impact is severe. Wells hospital covers a rural area that is not well served by public transport. It primarily serves an elderly population and patients and relatives will now have to travel much longer distances without the benefit of good public transport. The local community is working towards establishing a charitable trust to reopen and run the hospital. I have spoken to Lord Warner about this proposal.
	I urge the Minister to do whatever he can to facilitate the much-needed reopening of Wells hospital. Over the years, it has benefited enormously from a very strong local commitment. Inevitably, local people are prepared to raise funds for a small local hospital, and as a result of such efforts, extra money goes into the local health service. When such a hospital is closed down, that local contribution to health services comes to an end. We do not always think about such consequences of the loss of local hospitals, and the Government should take them seriously into account. Wells is a much-loved hospital and we need it back again. Anything that the Minister can do to facilitate that would be enormously appreciated by the local community.
	I want to say a word or two about the reorganisation of PCTs, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Minister himself is not to blame because he was not in post at the time, but anyone looking in from the outside and watching a Government establish PCTs, only to abolish them two years later and set up a new structure, would think that the whole system had gone completely crazy. One can only imagine the amount of money involved in two successive reorganisations. It is acknowledged that the Government have pumped a lot of extra money into the health service, but when people ask, Where has all the money gone?, it should be pointed out that reorganisations take their share. Effectively, that is money down the drain. The sooner that we can achieve a stable and permanent structure without further reorganisations, the better.
	I turn to the usage charge, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred. I entirely understand the importance of financial discipline. A system has to be put in place to ensure that those running local hospital trusts understand that spending beyond their means has consequences. We have new management in place and a recovery plan that has been agreed with the Government, but the Government have imposed an extra fine. On top of what is already a desperate situation, it is ludicrous to have to cope with an extra 1.6 million in loss of funds. I urge the Minister genuinely to look again at the usage charge.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the deficit faced is bad enough. He and I know from representing our communities that our part of the country, which has a low-wage economy and is very rural, has received less than its fair share of health service funding. Insufficient account has been taken of the ageing population in our county. My constituency has one of the oldest age profiles in the country, and providing health services to such a population is expensive. One cannot simply point the finger of blame at local management and say, It's your fault. We need to look at why the deficit has grown to the extent that it has. Once an historical deficit has been acquired, it is impossible to clear it without impacting on patient services. It is incumbent on the Government to look again at this issue genuinely and sincerely, because the impact on the people whom we collectively serve could be very serious.
	I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing what is a very important debate. I hope that the Minister will listen and respond constructively, so that we can get through this very difficult situation and give our constituents quality health services with stable funding.

Christopher Fraser: May I too, compliment my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this debate? It comes at a time when health care provision in Norfolk is in crisis. We cannot forget that when constituents contact us about such issues, they are doing so in their hour of need. On those occasions when we need to go to hospital or to the doctor, we need to know that the service will be adequate, well provided for and funded correctly, so that we can receive the treatment that we deserve.
	May I draw the Minister's attention to my recent correspondence with the well-respected Swaffham and district pensioners association, which is concerned about the inevitable pressure on beds at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, which serves my constituency? As the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, we should not view such problems in isolation, because hospitals and health services in the area serve a large rural community. People are not well off and they suffer in many ways. How do they travel to the hospital or the doctors, and how do they secure the service that they want? We have drawn that issue to the Government's attention in the past. When people arrive at hospital, they should be confident that it is well funded and well maintained. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk said, people who work in the health service in Norfolk are unsung heroes who work jolly hard in difficult circumstances. It is our duty as their parliamentary representatives to make that point, because when times are hard the tough get going, even though that is not always acknowledged by the   press and the media. I therefore hope that the Government will take my hon. Friend's observations into account.
	The Swaffham and district pensioners association would like an assurance that plans are in place to deal with
	a crisis waiting to happen.
	I hope that the Minister can alleviate their concerns. May I also draw his attention to the problem of cutbacks in hospitals in my constituency? At Thetford cottage hospital some clinical services have been withdrawn, and five wards are currently closed. Local people and staff are concerned about the prospect of further cuts, so I hope that the Minister can provide an assurance that they will not be made. There is a great deal of concern about the availability of beds for the long-term elderly sick at Swaffham community hospital. It was full in July, which does not bode well for availability in the winter months when demand could reach a peak. The weather is not as bad as it could be at this time year, but a harsh winter is predicted. Many elderly and vulnerable people in my constituency are worried about the provision of health care, and it is in their hour of need that we ask for an assurance so that everyone in Norfolk who is entitled to use the services that my colleagues and I have raised can go to bed comforted in the knowledge that the Government will ensure that there is proper provision and financing of health care in Norfolk now and in future.

Liam Byrne: May I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this Adjournment debate on health services in and around his constituency? He takes a keen interest in health matters in Norfolk, and has recently raised health   services in his constituency in parliamentary correspondence, to which the Minister of State, my hon.   Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms   Winterton), has already replied. He raised the issue with the Prime Minister, and we debated the financial deficit at the Queen Elizabeth hospital at Health questions last Tuesday. I welcome his balanced view of progress and matters that need to be addressed, and I   hope that I can address almost all his concerns this evening along with those expressed by the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser). If I fail to do so adequately, I hope that they will allow me to write to them to fill in the gaps.
	I very much welcome the credit that the hon. Gentlemen gave front-line national health service staff who work in and around their constituencies. They are right that they make the world of difference for many people. Indeed, in some cases, it is literally the difference between life and death. Before I turn to the crucial matters raised this evening, I should be grateful if the House permitted me to set the scene.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said that the Government bang on about the additional resources that have gone into the NHS, but we do so because we are very proud of them and the scale of the increase bears a little repetition. Funding of the NHS has increased from 35 billion in 199798 to nearly 70 billion in 200405, and is set to increase to 92 billion. That is an increase of enormous magnitude. Indeed, if the NHS were a national economy, it would be the 33rd largest in the world and about the size of Portugal. The extra money has brought extra staff, shorter waiting times and enormous advances against big killer diseases. The number of consultants is up by nearly 9,500. The number of registrar group doctors is up by 2,200 on last year alone. The number of GPs has increased by more than 4,000 since 1997. There are more qualified nurses working in the NHS than ever beforean increase of nearly 80,000 since 1997.
	As a result, NHS waiting times have fallen massively. The number of people waiting more than 13 weeks for an out-patient appointment has fallen from an enormous and scandalous 340,000 in 1997 to just 35,000 in June last year. In-patient waiting times are also showing enormous improvements. The number of people receiving treatment in hospital has increased by 750,000 to more than 5.5 million and the total number of people waiting has fallen by a quarter.
	The result is that lives have been saved. The cancer mortality rate in England has fallen by some 12 per cent. since 199597. Mortality for circulatory disease in England has fallen by a massive 27 per cent. But this debate is about the future, not the past. Our stance on health care in Norfolk is shaped by our ambition to cut the waiting times from the scandal of a year and a half that we inherited in 1997 to eighteen weeks. That is no empty promise, because it is backed by resources.
	Hon. Members talked about funding and the distance from target in their constituencies. In 1997, there were enormous gaps between actual funding and the correct level. In February this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did an enormous amount to correct that. For the latest allocations round for PCTs, covering the next two years to 200708, we have decided to move PCTs more quickly towards their fair share of funds. In 200304, some PCTs were as much as 22 per cent. under target. By more aggressively accelerating the funding of those furthest away from target, we will change that over the next few years. In fact, by 200708, no PCT will be more than 3.5 per cent. below its fair share.
	Hon. Members will, I am sure, admit that such increases have significant effects for Norfolk. For example, North Norfolk PCT will receive an allocation of 143 milliona cash increase of nearly 25 million or 20 per cent. over the next two years. West Norfolk PCT will receive substantial additional funding, representing cash increases of nearly 44 million or more than 25 per cent. over the next two years. That will leave the West Norfolk PCT about 3.5 per cent. under target, but that is a substantial correction to the wild extremes of 1997.
	The increases will mean big changes on the ground in Norfolk. The PCTs recently approved the outline case for Cromer hospital, which will see it become the best equipped local hospital serving a rural area. Intermediate care strategies will mean that care is provided closer to home.

Norman Lamb: The Minister rightly points to the approval in principle at strategic health authority level for Cromer hospital. That is extremely good news. However, there is a concern that because the strategic health authority contributes more than its fair share to the total deficit of the NHS, the whole project could be threatened by the financial situation. Will the Minister give an assurance that that will not happen? As he says, it is an exciting project and it must proceed.

Liam Byrne: I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman an even better reassurance. Funding for his local SHA will rise by about 700 million over the next two or three years, so in the context of a clear manifesto ambition to deliver services that are much more in line with local community needs, taking local community views much more closely into account and, above all, cutting waiting times to just 18 weeks, ambition and money together are the best assurance I can give.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned many unacceptable cases of poor NHS treatment for his constituents. I hope that he would agree that they are, by and large, the exception. The latest figures show that death rates from coronary heart disease and cancer in north Norfolk have fallen by about 20 per cent. and just over 3 per cent. respectively since 1997. That is in no small part due to the extra 5,000 nurses, 827 doctors and 256 GPs across the SHA area. Investment is being made to develop local health services and build new facilities where they are needed. Those initiatives are already delivering real benefits to patients.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned red tape, but I am sure that he would accept that management costs are lower as a percentage of NHS spending than in 1997. Managers are needed in the health service. The NHS treats 1 million people every 36 hours and is required to prepare for every contingency, from the possibility of pandemic flu to the London bombings in July, so it needs good planners and good managers. Sometimes, we do not give them the credit they deserve.

Henry Bellingham: I do not want to get into a long debate about management and bureaucracy, but as there is to be a reorganisation of PCTs in Norfolk does the Minister accept that there is significant duplication of management in PCTs that cover quite small areas?   For example, in my area there are finance managers, communications directors and other people doing management jobs, while just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk there is duplication of many of those aspects of management. That must be improved, but what will be the impact of that reorganisation on the funding targets that the Minister has just set out?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. Our manifesto was clear not just about the need to keep a tight handle on bureaucratic costs; we set a clear target of cutting 250 million-worth of administrative costs to put back into front-line care. The more important issue is how we ensure that local PCTs are the strongest possible commissioners of health services on behalf of their local communities. We will   not be a country where waiting times for medical treatment are only 18 weeks unless there is strong local commissioning. I think that the hon. Gentleman was involved in consultation about the proposed reorganisation of his local PCT. I understand that proposals are now with the Department and I hope that he will stay involved in the debate as it unfolds.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk talked of the need for a stable structure. I second that.
	It is against the background that I have set out that we must view the situation at Queen Elizabeth hospital, with which I want to deal in a little more detail. As hon. Members know, the reported deficit was 3.1 million in 200405 and it is forecast to rise to 11 million at the end of the current financial year. That deficit exists not because the Government have under-invested in health care services, but because each year for several years the trust has reported a small overspend yet failed to tackle the issue head-on. The broader strategic point I want to make to the House is that as we are about to pump another 22 billion into the NHS we must have health managers who are able to balance the books.

Norman Lamb: Is there not something of a contradiction in what the Minister says? He has already conceded that the area has not had its fair share of funding and that the Government intend to bridge that gap, yet he is now saying that that deficit is not the Government's fault. Surely there is a connection between the two.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because we must separate two points: the total money available in the local health economy and the efficacy of the management of local hospital organisations. Sometimes, those two things are not exactly the same, as I hope to underline in the following remarks.
	A range of measures show that it is possible to pay back the deficit without having an impact on quality care. In passing, I would tell Swaffham and district pensioners association that plans are in place to ensure that quality care not only continues at its current level but continues to improve.
	Queen Elizabeth hospital management have now introduced a number of commonsense measures to meet their financial targets for this year. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned changes to some of the wards. Patients discharged from Dereham ward, as part of a service reconfiguration, are now successfully cared for by far closer partnership working with other agencies, such as social services. There have been no readmissions of those patients, who are now cared for in a far more appropriate way. The hospital has achieved more than 2 million in savings this year from initiatives such as better bed management and discharge processes that lead to a reduction in the number of bed days. It has opened a new operations room to monitor bed management and emergency care that is linked to other rehabilitation and community beds and the East Anglian ambulance trust network, so patients receive far more appropriate care and the discharge process is much faster.
	The whole discharge process has been reviewed. Significant work has been undertaken, with the aim of taking inefficiencies out of the current process and reducing the lengths of stay where it is safe to do so. The hon. Members who have taken part in the debate will know that, when compared with other hospitals in the region, elective lengths of stay are about half a day longer and that non-elective stays are about one and a half to two days longer. Of course that will be influenced by the higher than national average proportion of older people in their constituencies, but the number of bed days is greater none the less. In fact, a detailed investigation across all specialties has been produced recently that identifies a number of initiatives that can safely reduce the number of bed days required to almost 20,000 per annum.
	On further reducing the rate of sickness, last year sickness cost the trust about 4.5 million, and there is a   continuation of existing initiatives to reduce that. Out-patient follow-ups still require attention. Changing practices surrounding follow-ups to reduce out-patient attendances is important because rates of follow-ups for new appointments are higher than average. The introduction of digital imaging will help to save money. At the moment, the trust spends almost 250,000 on film for X-rays. Distributing X-rays electronically will save money. Savings are possible in respect of operations on acute wards because lengths of stay will reduce as a result of more appropriate discharge activities. Finallyalthough this is not the entire listpayment by results, which is an important reform designed to build on the changes already in place, will help Queen Elizabeth hospital because its reference costs are good.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned Wells hospital and intermediate beds. If he will permit me, I will look into that because I do not have chapter and verse in front of me. In the meantime, I can tell him that the forthcoming White Paper on primary care will put a much stronger emphasis on care closer to home and very much recognise that such things are often important sources of local pride.
	Before I conclude my remarks, I want to deal head-on with the charge that has been levied. Gone are the days when we can simply write off debt. The Department of Health has ensured that there is a great deal of time to allow the trustin conjunction with the NHS bank and, ultimately, with the Departmentto agree a plan to manage the cash position for the remainder of the year. The fact is that similar agreements must be reached with other parts of the NHS because solutions to cash problems in local trusts can be managed only by securing cash underspends in other organisations. Overspending must be matched by underspends elsewhere in the NHS. The arrangements we are discussing are intended to provide a strong incentive for the NHS to avoid deficits. The rules have been in place for several years and NHS trusts are well aware of the consequences of running up a deficit.
	The administrative device in question is called the surplus incentive scheme. It was introduced in September 2005 and is managed by the NHS bank. Arrangements with NHS trusts or primary care trusts are for individual strategic health authorities to manage. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk was an adviser to business in a former life, so he understands the concept of the cost of capital well and will, I suspect, have advised people on it. I disagree with his analysis that the rate charged is penal. He will know that the cost of lending reflects the cost of capital, and in this case the charge reflects the cost of capital from within the system. A new management team can rarely quite wipe a slate clean and nor should it be allowed to wipe a balance sheet. A team should be given time to make good a situation that it has been hired to fix, which is why the trust has been given until 2007 to repay the specific part of the deficit.

Norman Lamb: Will the Minister indicate whether the rate of charge is the same in all such circumstances, or whether there is discretion? In other words, would it have been possible for the strategic health authority to have approved a lower rate than that which was imposed?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. If I may, I will look into it to ensure that he gets a full reply. I understand that his question is significant locally.
	The Government believe that with the level of investment going into the national health service, all NHS bodies should be able to plan for and achieve financial balance each and every year. The NHS is a big organisation and although it has been said that bringing its budget in on balance is the equivalent of landing a jumbo jet on a postage stamp, three quarters of trusts are able to do so, and we expect all trusts to be able to do so.

Christopher Fraser: Will the Minister address directly the issues that I raised regarding Thetford cottage hospital and Swaffham community hospital by way of communication to me after the debate?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of those points. I will indeed write to him   about both matters, which are important locally. I   understand that a community facility recently opened in Swaffham, so I realise that he asks an important question at a time when investment is going into the front line.
	Our policy is clear: advances to cut waiting times and advances in clinical excellence in care that are put in reach of not just a privileged few, but every community in this country, and that are free at the point of need for everyone who needs them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Nine o'clock.